# Babuwatch

Court-adjudicated records against public servants across India: civil servants and police.

2,443 court-adjudicated records against public servants — 522 civil servants and 1,921 police records, from 1168 Supreme Court / High Court judgments and 1275 trial-court convictions, from 34 states and union territories. A further 22 trial-court convictions later set aside on appeal are kept out of the counts. High Court / Supreme Court judgments span 1885–2026; trial-court convictions span 1964–2026. Findings are attributed to the deciding court; Babuwatch adds no findings of its own. Officer names below use gated display forms (a name appears only where the two-key plus subsequent-history gate graded the officer safe; all others appear as rank and unit only). Compensation figures are amounts ordered, not amounts shown paid.

## Nicobar Islands Police Police Constable v. The State (CW-2013-0041)

**Record:** CW-2013-0041 (compiler id CWC-1157); case GAP3-32-002
**Title:** Nicobar Islands Police Police Constable v. The State
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; bench: Port Blair; judges: Girish Chandra Gupta; Dipankar Datta
**Case number / citation:** CRA No. 016 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2013-12-17 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-12-25 (2009)
**Place:** South Andaman, Andaman and Nicobar Islands; city town: Port Blair; police station or unit: Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 307; IPC 436; IPC 506-II; IPC 427; IPC 429; IPC 324; IPC 363
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Port Blair woman; Port Blair man; Port Blair resident; Port Blair man (4 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; Rs 2.1 lakh (Rs 2,15,000)
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. Off-duty police constable intruded into his estranged wife's paternal house on the night of 25/26 December 2009, dealt dah blows to a servant and his father-in-law, set the house afire with petrol, and took a minor boy hostage until overpowered by police. The Additional Sessions Judge, Port Blair convicted him under IPC sections 307/436/506-II/427/429/324/363 with life terms for sections 307 and 436 plus Rs. 2 lakh and Rs. 15,000 compensation. The Calcutta High Court's Port Blair Circuit Bench held the trial court had accurately assessed the evidence and dismissed the appeal on 17 December 2013. The Supreme Court later dismissed his appeal but reduced the life sentence to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment on 29 April 2019.

> We are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has accurately assessed the evidence. Both the conviction and punishment are well founded. No interference is called for.

**Sources (3):** [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e41e4a93261a672e0219); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea9340607dba378d9d5073); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41955619/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Nicobar Islands Police Police Constable v. The State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Calcutta High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Calcutta High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'CRA No. 016 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2013-12-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'CRA No. 016 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e41e4a93261a672e0219', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea9340607dba378d9d5073', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41955619/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC conviction confirmed via SC order record + CaseMine snippets (primary text 403); SC later cut life to 10 yrs RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0041](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0041)

## Nicobar Police Constable vs Union of India and Others (CW-2019-0003)

**Record:** CW-2019-0003 (compiler id CWC-0296); case PUDUCH-004
**Title:** Nicobar Police Constable vs Union of India and Others
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Arijit Banerjee; Amrita Sinha
**Case number / citation:** WPCT No. 243 of 2018 / (2019) 03 CAL CK 0034
**Judgment:** 2019-03-11 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-10-06 (2012)
**Place:** South Andaman, Andaman and Nicobar Islands; city town: Port Blair; police station or unit: Indian Reserve Battalion, Andaman and Nicobar Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 s.50; Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 s.51; CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 r.3
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Indian Reserve Battalion, Andaman and Nicobar Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The Calcutta High Court Division Bench dismissed the writ petition of IRB Constable, caught red-handed with three colleagues on 6 October 2012 illegally trading wild water monitor lizards. The Court upheld the major penalty of forfeiture of five years' future increments with cumulative effect for grave misconduct and gross indiscipline, affirming the Commandant, DGP and CAT orders. It held the subsequent criminal acquittal under the Wildlife (Protection) Act had no bearing on the proved departmental charges. The penalty was held not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On 06th October, 2012 he along with three other members of the said battalion were caught red handed for indulging in illegal trade of Wild Water Monitor Lizard.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/983689/shri-p-murugeshan-appellant-hash-union-of-india-and-others-respondent/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192378653/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Nicobar Police Constable vs Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-03-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2019) 03 CAL CK 0034', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/983689/shri-p-murugeshan-appellant-hash-union-of-india-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192378653/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Calcutta HC DB dismissed the writ, confirming the major penalty on the IRB constable; matches disciplinary_upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0003)

## Nicobar Police personnel vs Union of India and Others (CW-2019-0008)

**Record:** CW-2019-0008 (compiler id CWC-0294); case PUDUCH-002
**Title:** Nicobar Police personnel vs Union of India and Others
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Subrata Talukdar; Arindam Mukherjee
**Case number / citation:** WPCT No. 153 of 2019 / (2019) 08 CAL CK 0059
**Judgment:** 2019-08-19 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-01-01 (2007)
**Place:** South Andaman, Andaman and Nicobar Islands; city town: Port Blair; police station or unit: Andaman and Nicobar Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 419; IPC 420; IPC 366; IPC 392; IPC 354
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Andaman and Nicobar Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Calcutta High Court Division Bench dismissed the writ petition of \[name withheld\] of the Andaman and Nicobar Police, whose termination (order dated 7 July 2009) followed proved disciplinary charges of demanding money for a police job, kidnapping/molestation/robbery, and mobile-phone theft. The Court examined the subsequent criminal-trial acquittals and held none was honourable, being based on hostile witnesses and wanting evidence. It found no infirmity in the DGP's refusal to review the penalty under the A&N Police Manual or in the CAT order of 18 December 2018. The termination from the disciplined force therefore stands confirmed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the petitioner, being a member of discipline force, must be said to have lost confidence in his employer and therefore, not fit to be retained in service.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1009308/ssimachalam-appellant-hash-union-of-india-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Nicobar Police personnel vs Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-08-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2019) 08 CAL CK 0059', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1009308/ssimachalam-appellant-hash-union-of-india-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Calcutta HC DB dismissed the writ, confirming termination of the A&N policeman; matches disciplinary_upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0008)

## The State vs Nicobar Police Police Constable (CW-2026-0087)

**Record:** CW-2026-0087 (compiler id CWC-1368); case cop-an-hc-1
**Title:** The State vs Nicobar Police Police Constable
**Court:** High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair; judges: Arijit Banerjee; Apurba Sinha Ray
**Case number / citation:** CRA (DB) 6 of 2024 with CRA (DB) 4 of 2024
**Judgment:** 2026-08-06 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands; police station or unit: PS Aberdeen; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** 376 IPC; 312 IPC
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, PS Aberdeen, Andaman and Nicobar Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Port Blair woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court convicted a serving police constable by its judgment dated 23.04.2026, reversing the Sessions Judge's acquittal dated 24.04.2024 in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2015. The High Court held that intimacy was secured on a false promise of marriage and that the complainant lady constable was coerced into abortions. The High Court imposed the minimum seven-year rigorous imprisonment plus fine for the sexual offence and a concurrent one-year term plus fine for the second offence. The High Court directed that ninety percent of any fine realized be disbursed to the victim as compensation.

> Ninety percent (90%) of the fine amount, if realized, shall be disbursed to the victim as compensation.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18626796/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32245148/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** sentence order
**display title redacted:** The State vs Nicobar Police Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'conviction by hc', 'source': 'CRA (DB) 6 of 2024 with CRA (DB) 4 of 2024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18626796/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32245148/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Sections field lists 417 IPC, but the High Court's conviction and sentencing order (primary source doc/18626796) are under Sections 376 and 312 IPC only; 417 IPC was part of the trial charge but not the conviction, and the sentence described covers only two offences.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2026-0087](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0087)

## Shri Nicobar Man vs The Director General of Police and Ors (CW-2026-0086)

**Record:** CW-2026-0086 (compiler id CWC-1367); case cop-an-hc-0
**Title:** Shri Nicobar Man vs The Director General of Police and Ors
**Court:** High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair; judges: Partha Sarathi Sen
**Case number / citation:** WPA/388/2025 / 2026:CHC-PB:111
**Judgment:** 2026-08-10 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nicobar, Andaman and Nicobar Islands; police station or unit: Campbell Bay Police Station (Case No. 30 of 2021); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating Officer, Campbell Bay Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Nicobar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court held that the State had produced no document apart from pleading to show compliance with the Supreme Court arrest safeguards in Campbell Bay PS Case No. 30 of 2021. The High Court held that no prima facie evidence had been produced to show compliance with the statutory arrest requirements. The High Court rejected the custodial-harm claim for want of prima facie material beyond a small superficial cut. The High Court directed a Deputy Superintendent of Police-level enquiry within 90 working days and directed disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent forthwith if breach is found.

> no prima facie evidence has been produced to show compliance of the statutory requirements

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47336075/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34895787/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** Para 11-12
**display title redacted:** Shri Nicobar Man vs The Director General of Police and Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2026:CHC-PB:111', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47336075/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34895787/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0086](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0086)

## The Deputy Inspector General of Police vs \[name withheld\] and Ors. (CW-1959-0002)

**Record:** CW-1959-0002 (compiler id CWC-0011); case ANDHRA-011
**Title:** The Deputy Inspector General of Police vs \[name withheld\] and Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: Chandra Reddy
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal No. 90 of 1956 and connected appeal / AIR 1960 AP 259
**Judgment:** 1959-07-28 (1959, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Andhra Pradesh; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 331; IPC 348
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police; Police Constables, served under the Sub-Inspector (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The High Court allowed the Government writ appeals and restored the October 1953 dismissal of Sub-Inspector and the constables serving under him, who stood convicted of moral-turpitude offences under Sections 331 and 348 IPC for custodial hurt and wrongful confinement to extort a confession. The Court held the January 1954 general amnesty on formation of Andhra State remitted only the sentences and did not wipe out the convictions, and that the Article 311(2) proviso permits dismissal on the ground of conduct leading to a criminal conviction. Since the officers had withdrawn their criminal appeals as not pressed, the Court held the convictions stood finally upheld and set aside the single Judge orders quashing the dismissals. The judgment does not name the station, district, victim, or offence date. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the result, the appeals filed by the Government are allowed and the Writ Petitions are dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/464087/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** The Deputy Inspector General of Police vs \[name withheld\] and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1959-07-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1960 AP 259', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/464087/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court allowed State appeals and restored dismissal of SI and constables convicted under IPC 331/348; 1954 amnesty remitted only sentence, not conviction.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1959-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1959-0002)

## State of Andhra Pradesh vs Kodur Police Sub-Inspector of Police (Station House Officer) (CW-1963-0001)

**Record:** CW-1963-0001 (compiler id CWC-0012); case ANDHRA-012
**Title:** State of Andhra Pradesh vs Kodur Police Sub-Inspector of Police (Station House Officer)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: J.C. Shah; B.P. Sinha; N. Rajagopala Ayyangar
**Case number / citation:** AIR 1963 SC 1723, 1964 SCR (3) 25
**Judgment:** 1963-04-10 (1963, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1954-03-05 (1954)
**Place:** Anakapalli, Andhra Pradesh (district at time: Visakhapatnam); city town: Kodur; police station or unit: Kodur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police (Station House Officer), Kodur Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kodur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** removal
**Sentence type:** removal (removal)

The Supreme Court restored the removal from service of Sub-Inspector, officer in charge of Kodur Police Station, for reprehensible conduct in wrongfully confining theft suspect \[name withheld\] in the station from the night of 5 March 1954 to 7 March 1954 without a magistrate remand, diary entry, or written acknowledgment. The Court found the departmental enquiry regularly proved the charge and rejected the officer defence that a Kodur man had escaped from village servants en route. Holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction under Article 226 to reappreciate departmental evidence by the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the High Court order quashing the DIG dismissal (modified to removal by the IGP) and dismissed the officer writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The charge against the respondent was that he had wrongfully confined a Kodur man on March 5, 1954, to March 7, 1954, in the police station.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1763592/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** State of Andhra Pradesh vs Kodur Police Sub-Inspector of Police (Station House Officer)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1963-04-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1963 SC 1723, 1964 SCR (3) 25', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1763592/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court set aside HC quashing and restored removal of SHO for wrongfully confining a Kodur man in Kodur PS for 3 days without remand.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1963-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1963-0001)

## The State of Andhra Pradesh vs Kadiri Police Sub-Inspector of Police and others (CW-1963-0002)

**Record:** CW-1963-0002 (compiler id CWC-0002); case SUPREM-040
**Title:** The State of Andhra Pradesh vs Kadiri Police Sub-Inspector of Police and others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K.C. Das Gupta; P.B. Gajendragadkar; K.N. Wanchoo
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1961 / 1964 AIR 33, 1964 SCR (3) 742
**Judgment:** 1963-05-09 (1963, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1957-01-06 (1957)
**Place:** Sri Sathya Sai, Andhra Pradesh (district at time: Anantapur); city town: Kadiri; police station or unit: Kadiri Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** IPC 330
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli Police Station; Head Constable, Vempalli Police Station; Police Constable, Vempalli Police Station (3 in record)
**Victims:** Kadiri man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order acquitting three police officers and convicted all of them under Section 330 IPC for torturing a Kadiri man to extort information regarding stolen property. A Kadiri man was taken into custody on 6 January 1957 and subsequently found dead with multiple injuries. The Supreme Court restored the Sessions Judge assessment of circumstantial and witness evidence, observing that deterrent sentences must be inflicted for such barbarous methods, and sentenced the Sub-Inspector, Head Constable, and Constable to five years rigorous imprisonment each. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A serious view cannot but be taken of such a barbarous method of dealing with persons suspected of a crime as was committed by these respondents in this case. It is necessary that deterrent sentences should be inflicted for such an offence when established. Accordingly, we convict the respondents under Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code and we sentence each of them to five years' rigorous imprisonment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/867890/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 64-65
**display title redacted:** The State of Andhra Pradesh vs Kadiri Police Sub-Inspector of Police and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1963-05-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1964 AIR 33, 1964 SCR (3) 742', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/867890/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court set aside High Court acquittal and convicted SI, HC, and Constable under IPC 330, sentencing each to 5 years RI for custodial torture.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-1963-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1963-0002)

## Koilkuntla Man and Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh (CW-1989-0003)

**Record:** CW-1989-0003 (compiler id CWC-0075); case GAP15-001
**Title:** Koilkuntla Man and Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: Jeevan Reddy; Bhaskar Rao
**Case number / citation:** AIR 1989 AP 235
**Judgment:** 1989-02-17 (1989, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1977-05-06 (1977)
**Place:** Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh; city town: Koilkuntla; police station or unit: Koilkuntla Sub-Jail guard, Kurnool; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Koilkuntla man; Koilkuntla man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.4 lakh (Rs 1,44,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court records the following account. The deceased and his son, accused in a 1977 Owk PS case, were lodged in Cell No.7 of Koilkuntla Sub-Jail; on the night of 5-6 May 1977 miscreants entered the jail and hurled bombs into the cell, killing the father while the son escaped with injuries. The family pleaded the deceased had warned authorities of danger to his life and the guards were callously negligent; the State denied negligence and claimed sovereign immunity. The Division Bench reversed the trial court's dismissal, held the police officials negligent in failing to provide adequate guard, rejected sovereign immunity as incompatible with Article 21, and decreed Rs.1,44,000 with interest against the State. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the negligence on the part of the police officials in failing to provide adequate guard to protect the life of the deceased

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98578/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Koilkuntla Man and Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1989-02-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 144,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 1989 AP 235', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98578/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB judgment verified; Rs 1,44,000 for undertrial murdered in sub-jail under negligent police guard.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1989-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1989-0003)

## Nellore Man vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (CW-1992-0008)

**Record:** CW-1992-0008 (compiler id CWC-0008); case ANDHRA-008
**Title:** Nellore Man vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: Y. Bhaskar Rao
**Case number / citation:** W.P. Nos. 2216 and 2225 of 1992 / 1992 (3) ALT 193, 1993 Cri LJ 691
**Judgment:** 1992-08-14 (1992, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-01-30 (1992)
**Place:** SPSR Nellore, Andhra Pradesh (district at time: Nellore); city town: Nellore; police station or unit: III-Town Police Station, Nellore; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 22; Constitution of India Art. 226; CrPC 97; Contempt of Courts Act 1971 s.15
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, III-Town Police Station, Nellore; Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Nellore; Inspector of Police, Nellore (3 in record)
**Victims:** Nellore man; Nellore man; Nellore man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court found that police officers illegally abducted a Nellore man and two others from their homes on 30 January 1992, detained them in III-Town Police Station, Nellore, and subjected a Nellore man to custodial beatings to discover the whereabouts of an SI daughter who had entered into an interfaith marriage. The Sub-Inspector of III-Town Police Station defied a search warrant issued under Section 97 CrPC by an Advocate-Commissioner appointed by the Magistrate. Holding that the officers violated Articles 21 and 22 in an egregious display of lawlessness, the Court awarded Rs 10,000 compensation payable by the State with liberty to recover from the officers, and initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the Station House Officer. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of these decisions, we hold that the Ist respondent-State is liable to pay compensation to the detenu for the forcible taking away and illegal detention of P.W. 3 and for the injuries sustained by him as a result of the beating by R-2 and another while P.W. 3 was in III-Town Police Station, Nellore, as certified by the Doctor, the illegal detention being malacious in the pursuit to know the whereabouts of the daughters of the 3rd respondent, who wedded a non-muslim boy of whom the detenu (P.W. 3) was a close friend. We accordingly direct the State (1st respondent) to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the illegal detention of the detenu, with the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., within one month from to-day.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1556927/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** Nellore Man vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1992-08-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1992 (3) ALT 193, 1993 Cri LJ 691', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1556927/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court held police illegally abducted, detained, and beat detenu over personal vendetta, awarding Rs 10,000 compensation and initiating contempt.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1992-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1992-0008)

## Tirupati Man vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (CW-1993-0006)

**Record:** CW-1993-0006 (compiler id CWC-0006); case ANDHRA-006
**Title:** Tirupati Man vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: N.D. Patnaik
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 15602 of 1993 / 1994 (1) ALT 60, 1994 Cri LJ 1469
**Judgment:** 1993-12-27 (1993, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-10-02 (1993)
**Place:** Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh (district at time: Chittoor); city town: Tirupati; police station or unit: Central Crime Station, Tirupati; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226; CrPC 482
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Tirupati; Police Constable, Central Crime Station, Tirupati (2 in record)
**Victims:** Tirupati man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Acting on a habeas corpus petition filed by a law professor, the High Court held that Andhra Pradesh police abducted a Tirupati man from his village in Tamil Nadu on 2 October 1993 and illegally detained him in Tirupati until 21 October 1993. The Court found that the subsequent registration of a gold-chain theft case against him was a fabricated cover-up to shield police wrongdoing. The Court quashed the criminal prosecution as a gross abuse of process and directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to pay Rs 5,000 compensation to a Tirupati man for violation of his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Since the arrest of a Tirupati man on the evening of 21-10-1993 on a false charge of theft and subsequent production before the Judicial Magistrate is only an attempt to cover up the illegal detention.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1477666/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** Tirupati Man vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1993-12-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 5,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1994 (1) ALT 60, 1994 Cri LJ 1469', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1477666/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court held AP police abducted and illegally detained victim for 18 days, fabricated false theft charge to cover up, and awarded Rs 5,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1993-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1993-0006)

## Madanapalle Man and Anr. vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (CW-1994-0002)

**Record:** CW-1994-0002 (compiler id CWC-0001); case ANDHRA-001
**Title:** Madanapalle Man and Anr. vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: Motilal B. Naik
**Case number / citation:** 1994 (3) ALT 131
**Judgment:** 1994-09-19 (1994, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-08-23 (1991)
**Place:** Annamayya, Andhra Pradesh (district at time: Chittoor); city town: Madanapalle; police station or unit: I Town Police Station, Madanapalle; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Madanapalle; Constable, I Town Police Station, Madanapalle (2 in record)
**Victims:** Madanapalle man, age 22 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court found that the petitioners son, 22-year-old a Madanapalle man, died on account of beating and torture by police personnel of I Town Police Station, Madanapalle while in custody between 23-8-1991 and 24-8-1991. The Court rejected the police defense that the victim was beaten by a mob for saree theft and died spontaneously of a ruptured berry aneurysm, noting eleven external injuries, failure to provide medical care, and fabricated entries in police registers. Holding the State liable for the tortious acts of its police personnel under Article 21 and Article 226, the Court awarded Rs 1,00,000 compensation and Rs 10,000 costs to the parents with liberty to the State to recover the amount from guilty personnel after a departmental enquiry. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On a careful consideration of the entire material placed before me and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to come to the conclusion that the death of a Madanapalle man is only on account of beating and torture by the Police personnel of I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, while he was in their custody between 23-8-1991 and 24-8-1991.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/600315/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Madanapalle Man and Anr. vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1994-09-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1994 (3) ALT 131', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/600315/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court found victim died from police custody torture at I Town PS Madanapalle and awarded Rs 1,00,000 compensation plus Rs 10,000 costs under Article 226.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1994-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1994-0002)

## The Government of Andhra Pradesh vs Andhra Pradesh Police Inspector of Police (CW-1997-0014)

**Record:** CW-1997-0014 (compiler id CWC-1097); case GAP3-127-005
**Title:** The Government of Andhra Pradesh vs Andhra Pradesh Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. Ramaswamy; D. P. Wadhwa
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 3510 of 1997 / (1997) 5 SCC 478; AIR 1997 SC 2447
**Judgment:** 1997-04-28 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Andhra Pradesh; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Andhra Pradesh Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 28 April 1997 confirmed the dismissal of Andhra Pradesh Inspector for demanding and accepting Rs. 3,000 to refrain from registering a complaint and launching a prosecution. The disciplinary tribunal found the charge proved and the Government dismissed him in July 1995, but the Administrative Tribunal asked the Government to reconsider a lighter penalty as dismissal shocked its conscience. The Court held that calibrating penalty to the gravity of proved misconduct is the disciplinary authority's domain, and a higher-ranking officer who sells non-prosecution damages the maintenance of law and order. It set aside the Tribunal's direction and confirmed the dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Tribunal in disciplinary proceedings found as a fact that the respondent demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 3,000/- for not prosecuting the offender. Since the respondent is an Inspector of Police, a higher ranking officer, if he demands and accepts illegal gratification and restrains himself from initiating prosecution against the offender, it would have an effect on the maintenance of law and order in the society.

**Sources (2):** [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1997/april/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-b-ashok-kumar-107); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/745575/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** The Government of Andhra Pradesh vs Andhra Pradesh Police Inspector of Police
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-04-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1997) 5 SCC 478; AIR 1997 SC 2447', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1997/april/the-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-b-ashok-kumar-107', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/745575/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC confirmed dismissal of Inspector who took Rs.3,000 to drop a prosecution.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1997-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0014)

## K. Yesupadam vs S.I. of Police, Penamaluru P.S., Vijayawada and Ors. (CW-1997-0008)

**Record:** CW-1997-0008 (compiler id CWC-0004); case SOUTH-001
**Title:** K. Yesupadam vs S.I. of Police, Penamaluru P.S., Vijayawada and Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: V. Rajagopala Reddy
**Case number / citation:** 1997 (2) ALD (Cri) 621, 1997 (5) ALT 98
**Judgment:** 1997-08-06 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-03-23 (1997)
**Place:** Krishna, Andhra Pradesh; city town: Vijayawada; police station or unit: Penamaluru Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Penamaluru Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Vijayawada woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court found that the Sub-Inspector of Penamaluru Police Station illegally detained a Vijayawada woman, a hospital aaya, for eight days from 23 March 1997 to 31 March 1997 without any General Diary entry, solely to pressure her absconding son to surrender. Accepting the inquiry report of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, which corroborated the unlawful confinement through independent witness testimony, the Court held that the officer flagrantly violated her fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21. The Court ordered the Sub-Inspector to personally pay Rs 10,000 compensation into a fixed deposit in the victim name for five years. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> However, since it was found that the 1st respondent has illegally detained the wife of the petitioner from 23-3-97 to 31-3-97, for eight long days, keeping her away from her duties as Aaya in Nagarjuna Hospital, the petitioner's wife should be suitably compensated.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1081343/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** K. Yesupadam vs S.I. of Police, Penamaluru P.S., Vijayawada and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-08-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1997 (2) ALD (Cri) 621, 1997 (5) ALT 98', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1081343/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court held SI of Penamaluru PS illegally detained woman for 8 days to force absconding son surrender, ordering SI personally to pay Rs 10,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0008)

## Vissannapeta Man vs The S.H.O., Vissannapeta P.S. and Ors. (CW-1997-0009)

**Record:** CW-1997-0009 (compiler id CWC-0003); case ANDHRA-003
**Title:** Vissannapeta Man vs The S.H.O., Vissannapeta P.S. and Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: V. Rajagopala Reddy
**Case number / citation:** 1997 (5) ALD 793, 1998 Cri LJ 414
**Judgment:** 1997-08-07 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-10-29 (1996)
**Place:** NTR, Andhra Pradesh (district at time: Krishna); city town: Vissannapeta; police station or unit: Vissannapeta Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226; CrPC 154; CrPC 155
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Vissannapeta Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Vissannapeta man, age 70 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 6,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court found that the Sub-Inspector of Vissannapeta Police Station unlawfully detained 70-year-old a Vissannapeta man from 29 October 1996 to 31 October 1996 without registering any crime. The detention was executed to pressure a Vissannapeta man regarding a civil loan dispute involving his son. Based on a CID enquiry report and witness testimonies confirming the illegal confinement, the Court held that the officer had violated Article 21 and directed the Sub-Inspector to personally pay Rs 6,000 compensation to the detenu. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus his stay till 31-10-96 in the police station should be treated as unlawful custody by the S.I. of Police. It is, therefore, clear that the detenu was detained unauthorisedly in the police station by the 4th respondent without there being any crime registered against him.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1110858/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Vissannapeta Man vs The S.H.O., Vissannapeta P.S. and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-08-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 6,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1997 (5) ALD 793, 1998 Cri LJ 414', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1110858/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court held SI of Vissannapeta PS illegally detained 70-year-old man for two days over a civil dispute and ordered SI personally to pay Rs 6,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0009)

## Tadipatri Man vs S.H.O. and Ors. (CW-1997-0010)

**Record:** CW-1997-0010 (compiler id CWC-0009); case ANDHRA-009
**Title:** Tadipatri Man vs S.H.O. and Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: Y. Bhaskar Rao; K.B. Siddappa
**Case number / citation:** 1997 (6) ALT 278
**Judgment:** 1997-11-13 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-08-31 (1997)
**Place:** Ananthapuramu, Andhra Pradesh (district at time: Anantapur); city town: Tadipatri; police station or unit: Tadipatri Rural Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226; IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural Police Station; Head Constable, Tadipatri Rural Police Station; Police Constable, Tadipatri Rural Police Station; Inspector of Police, Tadipatri (4 in record)
**Victims:** Tadipatri man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Acting on newspaper reports in Eenadu, the High Court held that a Tadipatri man, a poor coolie, was illegally detained at Tadipatri Rural Police Station on 31 August 1997 and tortured to death by police personnel after failing to satisfy their demands. The CID investigation and post-mortem report confirmed severe multiple ante-mortem injuries, including a skull fracture and broken ribs, holding the Sub-Inspector, Head Constable, and Constable responsible. Finding a gross violation of Article 21, the Court awarded Rs 1,50,000 compensation to the deceased wife and son and directed the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadipatri to conduct an enquiry into broader allegations of police extortion and torture in the area. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus, it is established that the deceased succumbed to the injuries due to torture by the police in the lock-up.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/851781/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Tadipatri Man vs S.H.O. and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-11-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1997 (6) ALT 278', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/851781/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court held coolie a Tadipatri man was tortured to death in lock-up at Tadipatri Rural PS and awarded Rs 1,50,000 compensation to widow and son.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0010)

## D.G. & I.G. of Police and Others v. Prem Sagar and Another (CW-1999-0003)

**Record:** CW-1999-0003 (compiler id CWC-0624); case SWILLEGA-054
**Title:** D.G. & I.G. of Police and Others v. Prem Sagar and Another
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: G.B. Pattanaik; N. Santosh Hegde
**Case number / citation:** (1999) 5 SCC 700
**Judgment:** 1999-04-13 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-01-01 (1992)
**Place:** Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh; city town: Kurnool; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Andhra Pradesh Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kurnool man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court dismissed the State appeals, affirming the Andhra Pradesh High Court direction to pay Rs 20,000 compensation for the one-month illegal and unauthorised detention of a Kurnool man His relatives filed habeas corpus on 15 October 1992 alleging detention since 26 September 1992; police claimed arrest only on 28 October 1992, but the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, inquiring with witnesses, found much earlier arrest and continuous police custody till production before the AJM First Class, Kurnool, though the responsible officer could not be located. The Court found sufficient material for the conclusion that the detention was wholly illegal and declined interference. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We do not find any error committed by the High Court in accepting the report of the learned Sessions Judge and in coming to the conclusion that a Kurnool man was illegally detained for a period of one month and for such illegal detention awarding compensation to the tune of Rs 20,000.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/881041/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad57e4b01497114111d4)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** D.G. & I.G. of Police and Others v. Prem Sagar and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1999-04-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 20,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1999) 5 SCC 700', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/881041/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad57e4b01497114111d4', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC affirmed Rs 20K for one-month illegal detention of a Kurnool man; State appeals dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1999-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0003)

## C. H. vs Government of A.P. and Others (CW-2001-0004)

**Record:** CW-2001-0004 (compiler id CWC-0383); case TELANG-006
**Title:** C. H. vs Government of A.P. and Others
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: Elipe Dharma Rao
**Case number / citation:** 2001 (4) ALD 210
**Judgment:** 2001-06-07 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-11-12 (1989)
**Place:** Alluri Sitharama Raju, Andhra Pradesh (district at time: Khammam); city town: Malluru; police station or unit: Kunavaram Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 226; Constitution of India Art. 21; IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Kunavaram Police Station; Inspector of Police, Bhadrachalam (2 in record)
**Victims:** Malluru woman, age 19; Malluru newborn (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court records the following account. The petitioner, a woman, was arrested and charge-sheeted for the murder of her husband under Section 302 IPC after he died during an epileptic seizure in November 1989. Despite forensic reports establishing that the deceased died from Mader vegetable poison administered by his own father to revive him, police pursued murder charges based on an unfounded theory that the wife gave him Musti Chekka poison. Following her acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, she petitioned the High Court under Article 226 citing severe social ostracisation, wrongful lock-up, and giving birth to a daughter in prison. The High Court found the investigating and charge-sheeting officers guilty of gross negligence and lack of bona fides in falsely prosecuting her despite scientific evidence, ordering the State to pay Rs 1,00,000 as compensation for violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> ignoring the fact that Mader poison was found during chemical analysis of viscera, which was admittedly administered by the father of the deceased only, the prosecution has charge-sheeted the petitioner falsely and made her to suffer and bear the curses of the society, whereas the allegation of the prosecution is that the deceased died due to Musti Chekka poison. Thus for the negligent act of the Investigating Officer - Government Servant, which culminated into untold sufferings and misery to the petitioner, the State is liable to compensate the petitioner.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/723998/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** C. H. vs Government of A.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-06-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2001 (4) ALD 210', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/723998/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court awarded Rs 1 lakh compensation under Art. 226 for false implication and wrongful prosecution despite forensic proof of innocence.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 19, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}; {'age': 0, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a newborn girl'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2001-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0004)

## Pakala Police Sub-Inspector of Police vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department and Anr. (CW-2001-0009)

**Record:** CW-2001-0009 (compiler id CWC-0005); case ANDHRA-005
**Title:** Pakala Police Sub-Inspector of Police vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department and Anr.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: S.R. Nayak
**Case number / citation:** 2001 (6) ALT 229
**Judgment:** 2001-11-05 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1981-08-22 (1981)
**Place:** Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh; city town: Pakala; police station or unit: Pakala Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 226; A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules 1960 Rule 2(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Pakala Police Station; Head Constable, Pakala Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Pakala man; Pakala man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Sub-Inspector, upholding his dismissal from service for corrupt misconduct. The officer had illegally detained two traders, a Pakala man and a Pakala man, on false allegations of possessing stolen copper wire, and demanded and received bribes of Rs 1,400 and Rs 3,000 to release them without registering cases. The Court confirmed the findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, holding that the charges were established on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is also very relevant to notice that there is no controversy according to the evidence on record, the charged officer demanded the bribe on 28-8-1981 and even on 29-8-1981 insisted for payment of bribe.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083807/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Pakala Police Sub-Inspector of Police vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-11-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2001 (6) ALT 229', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083807/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court dismissed writ petition of SI and upheld his dismissal from service for extortion of bribes under threat of false charges.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2001-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0009)

## Rajahmundry Man (Rajahmundry Man) vs \[name withheld\] and Ors. (CW-2002-0006)

**Record:** CW-2002-0006 (compiler id CWC-0010); case ANDHRA-010
**Title:** Rajahmundry Man (Rajahmundry Man) vs \[name withheld\] and Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: B. Sudershan Reddy
**Case number / citation:** W.P. Nos. 19666 of 1999 and 3785 of 2000 / 2002 (6) ALT 46, 2002 (2) ALT (Cri) 518
**Judgment:** 2002-10-03 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-08-08 (1999)
**Place:** East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh; city town: Rajahmundry; police station or unit: II Town Police Station, Rajahmundry; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, II Town Police Station, Rajahmundry; Police Constable, II Town Police Station, Rajahmundry; Head Constable, II Town Police Station, Rajahmundry (8 in record)
**Victims:** Rajahmundry man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 75,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court found that police personnel of II Town Police Station, Rajahmundry dragged a Rajahmundry man from his house on 8 August 1999, illegally detained him, and beat him with lathis for about four hours in the station causing multiple injuries. Accepting the enquiry report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which examined 23 witnesses and rejected the officers alibi defence, the Court held the torture violated the petitioner fundamental right under Article 21 regardless of his alleged bootlegging record. The Court directed the State to pay Rs 75,000 compensation plus Rs 2,500 costs to the Legal Services Authority, to fix individual responsibility and prosecute the guilty personnel, with liberty to recover the amount from them. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the instant case, we have no doubt whatsoever that the respondents-police personnel are jointly and severally responsible for the torture of the petitioner in the police station resulting in violation of his fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1296773/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 34
**display title redacted:** Rajahmundry Man (Rajahmundry Man) vs \[name withheld\] and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-10-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 75,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2002 (6) ALT 46, 2002 (2) ALT (Cri) 518', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1296773/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Single Judge held II Town PS Rajahmundry police jointly and severally responsible for custodial torture of petitioner and awarded Rs 75,000 compensation plus Rs 2,500 costs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0006)

## K. Kotapadu Man vs Government of A.P. and Ors. (CW-2002-0007)

**Record:** CW-2002-0007 (compiler id CWC-0014); case ANDHRA-014
**Title:** K. Kotapadu Man vs Government of A.P. and Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: T. Meena Kumari
**Case number / citation:** 2002(6) ALD 794; 2003(1) ALT 504
**Judgment:** 2002-10-11 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-08-25 (1993)
**Place:** Anakapalli, Andhra Pradesh (district at time: Visakhapatnam); city town: K. Kotapadu; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC s.174; Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (1 in record)
**Victims:** K. Kotapadu man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a K. Kotapadu man, arrested on 24 August 1993 with a suspected stolen motorcycle, bore injuries sustained only after being brought to the police station, where he was chained by the leg to a window rod in the lockup. The Court found that in all probability he hanged himself on 25 August 1993 unable to bear physical torture by the police, rejecting the claim that he acted from despondency and calling it strange that officers in the front room noticed nothing. Holding that his fundamental right to life under Article 21 had been violated, the Court awarded his 25-year-old widow Rs 1,00,000 as compensation, directing the State to hold it in a five-year fixed deposit with quarterly interest payable to her. The judgment identifies the erring officer only as the second respondent. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In all probability, the husband of the petitioner might have committed suicide because of the unable to bear physical torture meted out to him by the police while he was in their custody.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1093510/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** K. Kotapadu Man vs Government of A.P. and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-10-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2002(6) ALD 794; 2003(1) ALT 504', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1093510/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Custodial torture drove detainee to suicide; Rs 1L compensation verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0007)

## Chintalapudi Woman vs The Station House Officer and Ors. (CW-2002-0010)

**Record:** CW-2002-0010 (compiler id CWC-0007); case ANDHRA-007
**Title:** Chintalapudi Woman vs The Station House Officer and Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: B.S.A. Swamy
**Case number / citation:** W.P. Nos. 21782 and 22006 of 2002 / 2003 (1) ALT (Cri) 112, 2003 Cri LJ 1404
**Judgment:** 2002-11-21 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-10-28 (2002)
**Place:** Eluru, Andhra Pradesh (district at time: West Godavari); city town: Chintalapudi; police station or unit: Chintalapudi Police Station and T. Narasapuram Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, T. Narasapuram Police Station; Sub-Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Chintalapudi man; Chintalapudi man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court found that the Sub-Inspectors of T. Narasapuram and Chintalapudi Police Stations maliciously foisted false extortion and robbery charges against practicing advocate a Chintalapudi man in retaliation for filing a private complaint against police brutality. The police arrested him at 2 a.m., misled the Magistrate to deny bail, and unlawfully detained him for nearly 20 days. The Court quashed the criminal cases as an abuse of process, held that the officers violated Article 21, and directed the State to pay Rs 50,000 compensation to the advocate with directions to recover the sum from the two officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the light of the sequence of events, we hold that the police foisted the complaints against Mr. A Chintalapudi man, in retaliation to the private complaint filed by him on behalf of one Marudodla Savitri.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1069607/); SC SLP by SHO admitted: leave granted 13.02.2004 (Station House Officer vs S. Swathi)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 30
**display title redacted:** Chintalapudi Woman vs The Station House Officer and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-11-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2003 (1) ALT (Cri) 112, 2003 Cri LJ 1404', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1069607/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'SC SLP by SHO admitted: leave granted 13.02.2004 (Station House Officer vs S. Swathi)', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court found two SHOs foisted false cases against advocate in retaliation for complaint against police and ordered Rs 50,000 compensation recoverable from them.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0010)

## The Commissioner of Police and Others vs Andhra Pradesh Police Police Constable (CW-2006-0017)

**Record:** CW-2006-0017 (compiler id CWC-1115); case GAP3-129-004
**Title:** The Commissioner of Police and Others vs Andhra Pradesh Police Police Constable
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. B. Sinha; P. P. Naolekar
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 6319 of 2004 / (2006) 3 SCC 173
**Judgment:** 2006-01-25 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Andhra Pradesh; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Andhra Pradesh Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

remove/replace final sentence; appellants' (police) case is recorded via counter affidavit before APAT. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In a situation of this nature, keeping in view the nature of duties that a protector of law is required to perform, we are firmly of the opinion that the disciplinary authority cannot be said to have committed an error in imposing the punishment of removal from service upon the respondent, particularly when on earlier two occasions also he had been found guilty of commission of misconduct and punished therefor.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/349010/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** The Commissioner of Police and Others vs Andhra Pradesh Police Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-01-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2006) 3 SCC 173', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/349010/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC restored removal of constable who stood surety for habitual offender and aided criminals; HC lesser-penalty remit set aside.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0017)

## Miduthuru Man and Others v. The Circle Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur and Others (CW-2010-0005)

**Record:** CW-2010-0005 (compiler id CWC-0623); case SWILLEGA-053
**Title:** Miduthuru Man and Others v. The Circle Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur and Others
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: B. Prakash Rao; R. Kantha Rao
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal against W.P. No. 6195 of 2002 / 2010 (3) UPLJ 19
**Judgment:** 2010-06-01 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-01-10 (2002)
**Place:** Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh; city town: Miduthuru; police station or unit: Miduthuru Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Circle Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur Police Station; Sub-Inspector of Police, Miduthuru Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Miduthuru man; Miduthuru man; Miduthuru man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 96,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

remove/replace final sentence; police version (arrest + recovery theory) is recorded at paras 8, 21-22. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The alleged arrest as well as the detention are illegal and moreover, the police very well knew that they were implicating innocent persons falsely in a grave charge of murder only for their statistical purpose to close down the file with some invented result.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/710836/boya-nallabothula-venkateswarlu-and-others-appellant-hash-the-circle-inspector-of-police-and-oth/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5dc113403321bc13af24cd32); [blog.ipleaders.in](https://blog.ipleaders.in/remedies-illegal-police-action/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 36
**display title redacted:** Miduthuru Man and Others v. The Circle Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-06-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 96,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2010 (3) UPLJ 19', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/710836/boya-nallabothula-venkateswarlu-and-others-appellant-hash-the-circle-inspector-of-police-and-oth/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5dc113403321bc13af24cd32', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://blog.ipleaders.in/remedies-illegal-police-action/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** AP HC DB held 3 men falsely implicated in murder, illegally detained 32 days; Rs 32K each + costs with recovery.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0005)

## Piduguralla Resident & Ors. v. The Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur & Ors. (CW-2024-0035)

**Record:** CW-2024-0035 (compiler id CWC-1126); case GAP3-18-002
**Title:** Piduguralla Resident & Ors. v. The Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur & Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: K. Manmadha Rao
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 19858 of 2013 / APHC010522062013
**Judgment:** 2024-04-04 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-01-01 (2013)
**Place:** Palnadu, Andhra Pradesh (district at time: Guntur); city town: Piduguralla; police station or unit: Piduguralla Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Piduguralla Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Piduguralla resident (11 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.8 lakh (Rs 2,75,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

remove/replace final sentence; respondents' counters (denial + police-department ownership claim) are recorded and rejected for want of material. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that, the respondents without following due process of law, have high handedly demolished the houses of the petitioners is declared as illegal and arbitrary.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189028730/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=404202016000&Title=SHAIK-JAMAL-Vs.-COLLECTOR-AND-DISTRICT-MAGISTRATE)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Piduguralla Resident & Ors. v. The Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-04-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 275,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'APHC010522062013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189028730/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=404202016000&Title=SHAIK-JAMAL-Vs.-COLLECTOR-AND-DISTRICT-MAGISTRATE', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** AP HC judgment verified; police demolition declared illegal with Rs.25,000 compensation per petitioner (adverse_finding_compensation).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0035)

## The Director General, CISF & Ors. v. CISF Constable and others (CW-2025-0049)

**Record:** CW-2025-0049 (compiler id CWC-1125); case GAP3-18-001
**Title:** The Director General, CISF & Ors. v. CISF Constable and others
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: Battu Devanand; A. Hari Haranadha Sarma
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal No. 48 of 2025 / 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 176; APHC010603432024
**Judgment:** 2025-11-07 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh (district at time: Nellore); city town: Sriharikota; police station or unit: Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), SHAR Centre, Sriharikota; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 Rule 21; CISF Rules 2001 Rule 18(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), SHAR Centre, Sriharikota (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

remove/replace final sentence; department case is recorded in the judgment (paras 2-10). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The punishment of compulsory retirement ordered for opting conscious bigamous marriage by the writ petitioner is not disproportionate.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw-bennett.refread.com](https://livelaw-bennett.refread.com/pdf_upload/the-director-general-cisf-ors-vs-kudipudi-suri-babu-632702.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/andhra-pradesh-high-court/the-director-general-cisf-v-kudipudi-suri-babu-compulsory-retirement-1599112); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/andhra-pradesh-high-court/andhra-pradesh-high-court-upholds-dismissal-cisf-personnel-second-marriage-case-311005)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** The Director General, CISF & Ors. v. CISF Constable and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-11-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2025 LiveLaw (AP) 176; APHC010603432024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://livelaw-bennett.refread.com/pdf_upload/the-director-general-cisf-ors-vs-kudipudi-suri-babu-632702.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/andhra-pradesh-high-court/the-director-general-cisf-v-kudipudi-suri-babu-compulsory-retirement-1599112', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/andhra-pradesh-high-court/andhra-pradesh-high-court-upholds-dismissal-cisf-personnel-second-marriage-case-311005', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** AP HC judgment verified; CISF constable's compulsory retirement for bigamous marriage restored (disciplinary_upheld).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0049](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0049)

## Vijayawada Man vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (CW-2025-0026)

**Record:** CW-2025-0026 (compiler id CWC-0013); case ANDHRA-013
**Title:** Vijayawada Man vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: R. Raghunandan Rao; T.C.D. Sekhar
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 25601 of 2024
**Judgment:** 2025-11-10 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-11-06 (2024)
**Place:** NTR, Andhra Pradesh; city town: Vijayawada; police station or unit: Cyber Crime Police Station, NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 22; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police (Station House Officer), NTR Police Station (Cyber Crime), Vijayawada (1 in record)
**Victims:** Vijayawada man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

remove/replace final sentence; police claim (detenu attended on notice) recorded and disbelieved; SHO examined in court. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The fundamental rights of the detenue, guaranteed under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution of India, protecting him against arbitrary detention and assuring him of being produced before a magistrate, within 24 hours of such detention have clearly been breached.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15499929/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Vijayawada Man vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-11-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 25601 of 2024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15499929/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench held Cyber Crime PS Vijayawada illegally detained detenu 3 days without magistrate production and ordered SHO personally to pay Rs 10,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0026)

## Mortha Boy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (CW-2026-0056)

**Record:** CW-2026-0056 (compiler id CWC-0766); case GAP2-8-002
**Title:** Mortha Boy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: Ninala Jayasurya; T.C.D. Sekhar
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 24721 of 2026
**Judgment:** 2026-08-31 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-08-19 (2026)
**Place:** East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh; city town: Mortha; police station or unit: Samisragudem Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** BNS s.331(4); BNS s.305-A; JJ Act 2015; Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, Samisragudem Police Station, East Godavari District (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mortha boy, age 17 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

remove/replace final sentence; police version is recorded at para 5 (Aadhar blur / 2006 impression). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to impose costs. Therefore, respondent No.4/SHO, Samisragudem Police Station, East Godavari District, shall personally pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the A.P.High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati, within a period of one (1) week, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

**Sources (2):** [s3.courtbook.in](https://s3.courtbook.in/2026/09/veligatla_venkata_narayana_v_state_of_andhra_pradesh_ors.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/high-court/andhra-pradesh-high-court/ap-high-court-orders-release-minor-treated-adult-imposes-personal-costs-police-officer-548698)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 8
**display title redacted:** Mortha Boy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered compensation in an amount stated in the judgment.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 24721 of 2026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://s3.courtbook.in/2026/09/veligatla_venkata_narayana_v_state_of_andhra_pradesh_ors.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/high-court/andhra-pradesh-high-court/ap-high-court-orders-release-minor-treated-adult-imposes-personal-costs-police-officer-548698', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** AP HC held minor's remand to Central Prison illegal and without jurisdiction; SHO personally to pay Rs 10,000 costs to HCLSC.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0056](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0056)

## CRPF Head Constable v. Union of India and Others (CW-1991-0005)

**Record:** CW-1991-0005 (compiler id CWC-0907); case GAP2-57-003
**Title:** CRPF Head Constable v. Union of India and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. Ratnavel Pandian; K. Jayachandra Reddy
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Civil) No. 974 of 1989 / (1991) 2 SCC 488
**Judgment:** 1991-03-19 (1991, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-04-04 (1983)
**Place:** Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh (district at time: Tirap); city town: Vijaynagar; police station or unit: Vijaynagar Post, E Company, 11th Battalion, CRPF; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** CRPF Act 1949 s.11(1); Constitution Art. 32
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, E Company, 11th Battalion, CRPF; Post Commander, Vijaynagar Post (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

remove/replace final sentence; respondents/department case is recorded in the judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> After having perused all the records carefully, we are unable to find any clinching circumstances on the basis of which it can be said that the petitioner was not negligent in discharge of his duties and that he did not commit any act of misconduct. On the other hand we find that the statements of PWs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 coupled with that the PW 2 falsify the plea of the petitioner that the undertrial prisoners themselves dug the tunnel and managed to escape.

**Sources (3):** [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1991/march/laxmi-shankar-pandey-vs-union-of-india-ors-10); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1123786/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac61e4b014971140eb22)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** CRPF Head Constable v. Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1991-03-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1991) 2 SCC 488', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1991/march/laxmi-shankar-pandey-vs-union-of-india-ors-10', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1123786/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac61e4b014971140eb22', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified (AdvocateKhoj + Indian Kanoon); CRPF head constable's dismissal for custodial connivance upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1991-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1991-0005)

## Aalo Man v. The Union of India and Others (CW-2015-0010)

**Record:** CW-2015-0010 (compiler id CWC-0626); case SWILLEGA-056
**Title:** Aalo Man v. The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: Ujjal Bhuyan
**Case number / citation:** WP(Crl.) No. 07 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2015-11-05 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-05-06 (2014)
**Place:** West Siang, Arunachal Pradesh; city town: Aalo; police station or unit: Aalo Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 420; IPC 468; IPC 406; IPC 120B; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Arresting officers, Aalo Police Station (Aalo PS Case 7/2014); Sub-Inspector of Police, Naharlagun Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Aalo man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

remove/replace final sentence; State explanation + admission recorded. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> admittedly, the fundamental right of petitioner's brother under Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India was violated

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/136434499/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b4959e607dba348f013a6c)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Aalo Man v. The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-11-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'WP(Crl.) No. 07 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/136434499/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b4959e607dba348f013a6c', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC awarded Rs 50K exemplary costs for admitted Art 22(2) violation (no transit remand, Kolkata-Aalo).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2015-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0010)

## State of Assam and Another vs Assam Police Sub-Inspector (Officer-in-charge) and others (CW-1970-0001)

**Record:** CW-1970-0001 (compiler id CWC-1105); case GAP3-127-014
**Title:** State of Assam and Another vs Assam Police Sub-Inspector (Officer-in-charge) and others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. M. Sikri; V. Bhargava; C. A. Vaidialingam
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 2210 of 1966 / AIR 1970 SC 1255; (1970) 1 SCC 709
**Judgment:** 1970-03-18 (1970, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1955-01-01 (1955)
**Place:** Barpeta, Assam (district at time: Kamrup); city town: Sorbhog; police station or unit: Sorbhog Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Police Act 1861 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Officer-in-charge), Sorbhog Police Station, Assam Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 18 March 1970 allowed the State's appeal and restored the dismissal of Sub-Inspector, formerly in charge of Sorbhog police station in Assam. The Court found that the enquiry had proved neglect of reported cognizable offences, acquisition of unexplained assets, and concealment through a false 1957 asset declaration. It held that the enquiry officer was uninfluenced by Anti-Corruption Branch material collected behind the officer's back and that the punishing and appellate authorities had independently found him guilty on the evidence. The Assam High Court's quashing order was set aside with costs against the officer. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On receipt of the explanation, the Superintendent of Police, by his order dated December 3, 1958 rejected the explanation of the respondent, accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and holding that the charges had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, dismissed the respondent from service with immediate effect.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](http://indiankanoon.org/doc/90927/); [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1970/march/the-state-of-assam-anr-vs-mahendra-kumar-das-ors-insc-69-18-march-1970-23)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** State of Assam and Another vs Assam Police Sub-Inspector (Officer-in-charge) and others
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1970-03-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1970 SC 1255; (1970) 1 SCC 709', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'http://indiankanoon.org/doc/90927/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1970/march/the-state-of-assam-anr-vs-mahendra-kumar-das-ors-insc-69-18-march-1970-23', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC restored dismissal of Sorbhog SHO for neglected cognizable offences, unexplained assets and false asset declaration.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1970-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1970-0001)

## The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association vs State of Assam and Anr. (CW-1996-0002)

**Record:** CW-1996-0002 (compiler id CWC-0015); case ASSAM-001
**Title:** The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association vs State of Assam and Anr.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S.C. Sen; A.M. Ahmadi
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 209 of 1993 / 1996 AIR 1925, JT 1996 (5) 88, 1996 SCALE (4) 290
**Judgment:** 1996-05-09 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-03-09 (1993)
**Place:** Hailakandi, Assam; city town: Hailakandi; police station or unit: Office of the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 129; Contempt of Courts Act 1971 s.12; Constitution of India Art. 32
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, Assam (1 in record)
**Victims:** Hailakandi man, age 35 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 0.25 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

remove/replace final sentence; SP report + affidavit + apology recorded and rejected by the Court. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We hold him guilty of contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Having regard to the gravity of the case, we sentence the contemner \[name withheld\] to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/350151/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association vs State of Assam and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-05-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1996 AIR 1925, JT 1996 (5) 88, 1996 SCALE (4) 290', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/350151/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court convicted SP Hailakandi of criminal contempt for false report/affidavit covering up custodial death of undertrial a Hailakandi man; 3 months simple imprisonment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-1996-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0002)

## Bar Tapa Woman vs State of Assam and Others (CW-1996-0005)

**Record:** CW-1996-0005 (compiler id CWC-0017); case SWDISPRO-025
**Title:** Bar Tapa Woman vs State of Assam and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: J. N. Sarma
**Case number / citation:** 1997 CriLJ 874
**Judgment:** 1996-06-12 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-06-03 (1995)
**Place:** Barpeta, Assam; city town: Bar Tapa; police station or unit: Bhabanipur Out Post, Barpeta; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, Assam Police; Sub-Inspector, Barpeta, Assam Police; Sub-Inspector (in charge, Bhabanipur OP), Bhabanipur OP, Barpeta; Constable, Barpeta, Assam Police (4 in record)
**Victims:** Bar Tapa man, age 27 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court held that a Bar Tapa man, though an admitted hardcore ULFA member, was killed by Assam Police personnel in a cold-blooded manner at Bar Tapa on 3 June 1995 rather than in genuine cross-firing. Agreeing with the Barpeta District Judge's enquiry, the court found no bona fide attempt to apprehend him alive though ample opportunity existed, with disproportionate retaliatory fire from 3 to 5 feet. It held the police wanted to eliminate him, shattering the rule of law. The court awarded Rs 1 lakh compensation to his mother for breach of Article 21, payable within three months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> there was no bona fide attempt to apprehend a Bar Tapa man but he was killed by the police personnels in a cold blooded manner.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1039850/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Bar Tapa Woman vs State of Assam and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-06-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1997 CriLJ 874', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1039850/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC holds police shot alleged ULFA man in cold blood at Bar Tapa; Rs 1 lakh to mother.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1996-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0005)

## Pengaree Man and Another vs State of Assam and Others (CW-1999-0001)

**Record:** CW-1999-0001 (compiler id CWC-0019); case EAST---NORTHEAST-003; aliases: CWC-1452
**Title:** Pengaree Man and Another vs State of Assam and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: M. Sharma
**Case number / citation:** Civil Rule No. 2163 of 1996 / (2000) 2 GLT 504
**Judgment:** 1999-02-04 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-02-15 (1996)
**Place:** Tinsukia, Assam; city town: Pengaree; police station or unit: Pengaree Police Outpost, Tinsukia; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (2 in record)
**Victims:** Pengaree man, age 19 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

On 15 February 1996, 19-year-old student a Pengaree man was caught by two constables while awaiting conveyance, beaten, and taken to Pengaree outpost; on 16 February his family found his body in the lock-up with blood from the nose and bruises, while police claimed he hanged himself. The hale-and-hearty boy with no criminal background died in custody and police buried the body in haste, denying the family rites. The court held police personnel could not escape responsibility for the custodial death and directed the State to pay Rs.2,00,000 compensation to the widowed mother through the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia. Full text verified via the courtkutchehry mirror. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Taking into consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the police personnel cannot escape the responsibilities of custodial death of the deceased at Pengaree Police Out Post.

**Sources (2):** [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaa9fb607dba3c8ce3eb29); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/427835/moheela-moran-and-another-vs-state-of-assam-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Pengaree Man and Another vs State of Assam and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1999-02-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2000) 2 GLT 504', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaa9fb607dba3c8ce3eb29', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/427835/moheela-moran-and-another-vs-state-of-assam-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Full judgment verified via mirror; Rs 2L to mother for custodial death of 19-year-old.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1999-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0001)

## Guwahati Man vs State of Assam and Others (CW-1999-0005)

**Record:** CW-1999-0005 (compiler id CWC-0035); case ASSAM-022
**Title:** Guwahati Man vs State of Assam and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: J. N. Sarma
**Case number / citation:** Civil Rule No. 1600 of 1995 / (1999) 05 GAU CK 0039
**Judgment:** 1999-05-11 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-01-02 (1995)
**Place:** Kamrup Metropolitan, Assam (district at time: Kamrup); city town: Guwahati; police station or unit: Noonmati Police Station, Guwahati; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Noonmati Police Station, Guwahati; Superintendent of Police (City), Guwahati City (2 in record)
**Victims:** Guwahati man, age 25 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Gauhati High Court held Noonmati police guilty of torturing 25-year-old deaf-mute, mentally retarded a Guwahati man in the lock-up on 2 January 1995. The Court accepted the Additional District Judge's enquiry finding that the boy, picked up on false charges, was beaten through the night sustaining fractures in both legs, denied food and water, and that OC had knowledge while SP (City) \[name withheld\] took no action on the complaint. It awarded Rs 1,00,000 compensation (Rs 75,000 State, Rs 25,000 from the two officers' salaries) and directed a criminal case against the OC and disciplinary action against both officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> That on 2.1.95 a Guwahati man, a physically handicapped and mentally retarded person was tortured at Noonmati P.S. by police personnel causing fractural injuries in his both legs.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/427564/subhangsu-das-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 2 (enquiry finding (i) adopted by court)
**display title redacted:** Guwahati Man vs State of Assam and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1999-05-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1999) 05 GAU CK 0039', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/427564/subhangsu-das-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Custodial torture of disabled youth proved; Rs 1L compensation plus prosecution/disciplinary directions.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1999-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0005)

## Gopal Ch. Morigaon Man and Another v. State of Assam and Others (CW-2000-0002)

**Record:** CW-2000-0002 (compiler id CWC-0029); case SWFAKEEN-014; aliases: CWC-1454
**Title:** Gopal Ch. Morigaon Man and Another v. State of Assam and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: D.N. Chowdhury
**Case number / citation:** Civil Rule Nos. 3809 and 4032 of 1994 / (2000) 1 GLT 643
**Judgment:** 2000-02-17 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-08-06 (1994)
**Place:** Morigaon, Assam; city town: Morigaon; police station or unit: Morigaon Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Nakhyatra Bora (Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Morigaon man, age 24; Morigaon man, age 40 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5.3 lakh (Rs 5,30,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Gauhati High Court records the following account. College student a Morigaon man (24) was picked up from his Morigaon home on 6 August 1994 by a team including SI Nakhyatra Bora with SULFA members and CRPF, seen in the Morigaon lockup, then shot dead at point-blank range in a staged encounter at Mayengia village. Separately, office assistant a Morigaon man died of custodial torture injuries including a fractured femur, which police falsely ascribed to a fall. Accepting District Judge inquiry reports and medical evidence, the Gauhati High Court held both men died in police custody in defiance of the law of the land and rejected the encounter and accidental-fall versions. It awarded Rs.2,50,000 plus Rs.15,000 costs to each family, payable within six months, leaving the State free to proceed against and recover from the erring officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Both of them died in Police custody in defiance of the law of the land. In both the cases there is unconstitutional deprivation of personal liberty and life.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/419319/gopal-ch-sarmah-and-another-vs-state-of-assam-and-others/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaab5a607dba3c8ce400c3); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/419319/gopal-ch-sarmah-and-another-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Gopal Ch. Morigaon Man and Another v. State of Assam and Others
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-02-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 530,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2000) 1 GLT 643', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/419319/gopal-ch-sarmah-and-another-vs-state-of-assam-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaab5a607dba3c8ce400c3', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/419319/gopal-ch-sarmah-and-another-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC held both men died in police custody; Rs.2.5L + costs to each family confirmed in text.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2000-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0002)

## Mangaldoi Man vs State of Assam and Ors. (CW-2001-0002)

**Record:** CW-2001-0002 (compiler id CWC-0018); case ASSAM-004
**Title:** Mangaldoi Man vs State of Assam and Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: Ranjan Gogoi
**Case number / citation:** Civil Rule No. 1333 of 1995 / 2002 ACJ 735
**Judgment:** 2001-04-26 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-12-04 (1994)
**Place:** Darrang, Assam; city town: Mangaldoi; police station or unit: Mangaldoi Police Station (arrest by Khairabari Police Station party); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (2 in record)
**Victims:** Mangaldoi man, age 25 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court held that 25-year-old \[name withheld\], arrested in a TADA case by a Khairabari PS party in the early hours of 4 December 1994, was assaulted and tortured to death by police while in custody at Mangaldoi Police Station the same night. Relying on the Darrang District Judge enquiry, including eyewitness co-detenues, the Court rejected the police story that the handcuffed detenu fell while fleeing. The Court awarded Rs 2,00,000 compensation to his mother and directed the CBI to register an FIR and investigate; the Division Bench dismissed the State appeal in 2006 with Rs 10,000 costs, noting the State had already paid the compensation.

> The statements of P.Ws. 6,7,11 and 12 who were present with the deceased while in police custody establishes the fact that the deceased was assaulted and tortured by police while in their custody.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/550907/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/757390/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Mangaldoi Man vs State of Assam and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-04-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2002 ACJ 735', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/550907/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/757390/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Single Judge held \[name withheld\] tortured to death in Mangaldoi PS custody, awarded Rs 2 lakh and ordered CBI FIR; State appeal dismissed with Rs 10,000 costs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2001-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0002)

## Pachim Boragaon, Guwahati Man and Others vs State of Assam and Others (CW-2001-0015)

**Record:** CW-2001-0015 (compiler id CWC-0861); case GAP2-41-005
**Title:** Pachim Boragaon, Guwahati Man and Others vs State of Assam and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: D. Biswas
**Case number / citation:** WP (C) No. 4567 of 1999 / (2003) 1 GLR 659
**Judgment:** 2001-09-10 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-11-27 (1998)
**Place:** Kamrup Metropolitan, Assam (district at time: Kamrup); city town: Pachim Boragaon, Guwahati; police station or unit: Dispur Police Station (escort party); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Assam Police (Dispur PS case party); Head Constable and armed personnel, Assam Police (escort party)
**Victims:** Pachim Boragaon, Guwahati man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court disposed of the writ petition of the wife and children of a Pachim Boragaon, Guwahati man, arrested on 27.11.1998 in a Dispur dacoity case and shot dead the same day by his police escort near Pachim Boragaon. Adopting the District Judge (Kamrup) enquiry report, the court found the handcuffed detenu was shot in the back of the chest though the escort could have fired at his legs. It held the force was in excess of necessity and the police negligent and guilty of misconduct in causing a custodial death. Applying D.K. Basu and Nilabati Behera, the court ordered Rs 2 lakh compensation within three months and directed action against the defaulting personnel plus thorough criminal investigation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The force applied by the police has been definitely in excess of what was necessary. Therefore, they were negligent and guilty of misconduct in causing the death of a man in custody.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1837649/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/418227/enu-begum-and-others-vs-state-of-assam-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Pachim Boragaon, Guwahati Man and Others vs State of Assam and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-09-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2003) 1 GLR 659', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1837649/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/418227/enu-begum-and-others-vs-state-of-assam-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Mirror text verified: Rs 2L compensation; handcuffed detenu shot in back; WP(C) 4567/1999.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2001-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0015)

## Guwahati Man v. State of Assam and Others (CW-2002-0015)

**Record:** CW-2002-0015 (compiler id CWC-0667); case SWFAKEEN-039
**Title:** Guwahati Man v. State of Assam and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: D. Biswas
**Case number / citation:** AIR 2003 Gau 101
**Judgment:** 2002-09-03 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-10-24 (1997)
**Place:** Kamrup Metropolitan, Assam (district at time: Kamrup); city town: Guwahati; police station or unit: Assam Police Armed Branch (Doordarshan Kendra duty party, Guwahati); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; Arms Act s.27(3); Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Branch Constable, Assam Police, Guwahati (Doordarshan Kendra duty party); Unknown, Assam Police (Doordarshan Kendra duty party) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Guwahati man, age 29 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court (Justice D. Biswas) awarded Rs 5 lakh to 65-year-old Jagat Dhar Sharma for the admitted on-duty gunshot killing of his 29-year-old engineer son \[name withheld\] on R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati, on 24 October 1997. The Court found that armed constable, after quarrelling with a tea-stall keeper, fired aiming at the keeper in a crowded street with full knowledge of likely fatal injury to the public, and the bullet struck bystander a Guwahati man instead. Holding the State vicariously liable for this grave Article 21 violation, the Court ordered the languishing investigation completed within three months and recovery of the award from Deka and the duty-party members who failed to restrain him. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is an admitted fact that a Guwahati man was killed by gunshot fired by ABC/264 Shri \[name withheld\] on duty. The gunshot was fired in a crowded place with the full knowledge that he was likely by such act to cause fatal injuries to the members of the public.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100542/); [legalindia.com](https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/jagat-dhar-sharma-vs-state-of-assam-and-ors-on-3-september-2002); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/420494/jagat-dhar-sharma-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Guwahati Man v. State of Assam and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-09-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 2003 Gau 101', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100542/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/jagat-dhar-sharma-vs-state-of-assam-and-ors-on-3-september-2002', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/420494/jagat-dhar-sharma-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC judgment corroborated on legalindia/sooperkanoon/courtkutchehry; Rs 5L award, \[name withheld\] firing admitted.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0015)

## Mathurapur Man vs State Of Assam And Ors. (CW-2003-0003)

**Record:** CW-2003-0003 (compiler id CWC-0022); case ASSAM-008
**Title:** Mathurapur Man vs State Of Assam And Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: B.B. Jain
**Case number / citation:** 2003 CRI. L. J. 4197, (2003) 2 GLR 395
**Judgment:** 2003-03-06 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-10-02 (1999)
**Place:** Charaideo, Assam (district at time: Sivasagar); city town: Mathurapur; police station or unit: Mathurapur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Mathurapur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.2 lakh (Rs 1,25,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition seeking compensation for the custodial death of a Mathurapur man, who died in District Jail, Sivasagar on October 21, 1999, after arrest by Mathurapur police. The Court rejected the District Judge's inquiry finding that had burdened the petitioner to prove physical torture, noting that the police failed to comply with D.K. Basu arrest intimation directives and offered no records explaining his sudden death or enlarged liver. Holding that the cumulative omissions led to a prudent inference of foul play while in custody, the Court directed the State respondents to pay Rs. 1,25,000 in compensation to the deceased mother. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The cumulative effect of all these omissions on the part of the Police/Jail authority would lead a prudent man to infer that due to some foul play committed on the deceased \[name withheld\], sudden death happened while in custody and as such the respondents cannot absolve their responsibilities.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1958724/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Mathurapur Man vs State Of Assam And Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-03-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 125,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2003 CRI. L. J. 4197, (2003) 2 GLR 395', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1958724/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati High Court found foul play in custodial death and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,25,000 to deceased mother.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0003)

## Dhupdhara Man vs State of Assam and Ors. (CW-2003-0015)

**Record:** CW-2003-0015 (compiler id CWC-0917); case ASSAM-009
**Title:** Dhupdhara Man vs State of Assam and Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: B.B. Deb
**Case number / citation:** Civil Rule No. 131 of 1998 / (2003) CriLJ 4536; (2003) 2 GLR 386
**Judgment:** 2003-03-06 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-09-08 (1997)
**Place:** Goalpara, Assam; city town: Dhupdhara; police station or unit: Dhupdhara Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Dhupdhara man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court (B.B. Deb, J.) allowed the writ petition arising from the death of a Dhupdhara man, arrested on 8 September 1997 and found hanged inside the Dhupdhara police lock-up the same afternoon. The Court rejected the torture-murder allegation on the post-mortem evidence but held the death was a suicide enabled by gross and reckless negligence of the lock-up staff, noting a blanket had no business inside the lock-up in September and the iron-barred lock-up was visible from the duty point. It awarded Rs. 50,000 compensation to the widow, payable within 45 days, and left the State free to enquire into and proceed against the erring officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The deceased committed suicide while in custody and that was due to gross negligence of the Police personnel of that PS and thus, the Police authority cannot totally absolve its liability.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/583806/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/135335/jahira-nessa-bewa-vs-state-assam-ors)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Dhupdhara Man vs State of Assam and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-03-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2003) CriLJ 4536; (2003) 2 GLR 386', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/583806/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/135335/jahira-nessa-bewa-vs-state-assam-ors', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: custodial suicide due to police negligence, Rs 50,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0015)

## Silchar Police Daroga (In-charge) and others vs State of Assam (CW-2003-0010)

**Record:** CW-2003-0010 (compiler id CWC-0031); case ASSAM-018
**Title:** Silchar Police Daroga (In-charge) and others vs State of Assam
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: D. Biswas; Amitava Roy
**Case number / citation:** Crl. Appeal Nos. 272/01, 274/01 and 292/01 / (2004) 3 GLR 77
**Judgment:** 2003-11-04 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-08-24 (1996)
**Place:** Cachar, Assam; city town: Silchar; police station or unit: Malugram Town Outpost, Silchar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Daroga (In-charge), Malugram Town Outpost, Silchar; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Malugram Town Outpost, Silchar; Constable, Malugram Town Outpost, Silchar; Constable, Malugram Town Outpost, Silchar (4 in record)
**Victims:** Silchar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 6 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Gauhati High Court sustained the convictions of four Malugram Town Outpost policemen for torturing detainee a Silchar man to death over 24-26 August 1996. Arrested on the night of 24 August, he was repeatedly taken from the lock-up and assaulted at the appellants' will, sustaining 41 injuries to which the Court attributed his death. The Court ruled out the intent for murder and altered the two Section 302 convictions to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34, sentencing \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] to six years' rigorous imprisonment with Rs 25,000 fine each. It maintained the four-year sentences of constables and \[name withheld\] and cancelled their bail bonds. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Death was the cumulative effect of the 41 injuries found all over his body.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/649424/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 58
**display title redacted:** Silchar Police Daroga (In-charge) and others vs State of Assam
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gauhati High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gauhati High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2004) 3 GLR 77', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2003-11-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2004) 3 GLR 77', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/649424/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** All four convictions sustained (two altered 302 to 304-II); 6-yr max verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2003-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0010)

## State of Assam v. Tarulata Devi (CW-2006-0005)

**Record:** CW-2006-0005 (compiler id CWC-0453); case SWCUSTOD-022
**Title:** State of Assam v. Tarulata Devi
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: B.P. Katakey
**Case number / citation:** (2007) 2 GLR 217
**Judgment:** 2006-06-16 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-12-04 (1994)
**Place:** Darrang, Assam; city town: Mangaldoi; police station or unit: Mangaldoi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 201; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Mangaldoi Police Station, Darrang; Officer-in-Charge, Khoirabari Police Station, Darrang (2 in record)
**Victims:** Mangaldoi man, age 25 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

remove 'after the Supreme Court's remand' (no SC mention in either judgment); remove or source 'ULFA' (TADA context only, SJ mentions TADA once re co-accused; 'ULFA' nowhere); state police version (escape bid, fall on handcuff — DB paras 8, 11, 15). \[name withheld\] is named only as an accused in CBI FIR RC-6/S/2001 registered on the Single Judge's direction; the court recorded no personal finding and expressly declined to record guilt against any person while investigation was pending. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> \[name withheld\] was brutally tortured by the police personnel while he was in custody.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/757390/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/550907/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** State of Assam v. Tarulata Devi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-06-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2007) 2 GLR 217', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/757390/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/550907/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment text verified; custodial torture-death, Rs.2L paid + CBI murder probe sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0005)

## Diphu Boy vs State of Assam and Ors. (CW-2006-0007)

**Record:** CW-2006-0007 (compiler id CWC-0021); case EAST---NORTHEAST-002
**Title:** Diphu Boy vs State of Assam and Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: B. Sudershan Reddy
**Case number / citation:** (2006) 3 GLR 810
**Judgment:** 2006-07-31 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-03-21 (2004)
**Place:** Karbi Anglong, Assam; city town: Diphu; police station or unit: Diphu Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge (respondent No. 3), Diphu Police Station, Karbi Anglong (2 in record)
**Victims:** Diphu boy, age 14 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Gauhati High Court records the following account. fix duplicated phrase '14-year-old Class IX student a 14-year-old boy'; state police version (accidental fall from bamboo bridge — paras 13, 16). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is a clear case where only conclusion that could eventually be drawn is that the petitioner's brother was taken into custody by the 3rd respondent and other police personnel in connection with the investigation into the Diphu P.S. Case No. 5/04 registered against him and has been subjected to brutal torture in custody resulting in his death while in custody.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166698/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1903007/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Diphu Boy vs State of Assam and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-07-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2006) 3 GLR 810', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166698/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1903007/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court held 14-year-old Bhupen Singh Terang tortured to death in Diphu PS custody; Rs 3 lakh (recoverable from OC salary), criminal case + CID probe + disciplinary action ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 14, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 14-year-old boy'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0007)

## Bokajan Woman vs State of Assam and Ors. (CW-2006-0026)

**Record:** CW-2006-0026 (compiler id CWC-0026); case ASSAM-012
**Title:** Bokajan Woman vs State of Assam and Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: B. S. Reddy
**Case number / citation:** 2007 CriLJ 1017
**Judgment:** 2006-08-21 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-04-20 (2005)
**Place:** Karbi Anglong, Assam; city town: Bokajan; police station or unit: Bokajan Police Station area (Kalapahar forest operation party); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Additional Superintendent of Police, Karbi Anglong; Police personnel, Bokajan PS area (2 in record)
**Victims:** Bokajan woman, age 30 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court held that a police party led by Additional SP picked up a Bokajan woman in an injured condition during an anti-insurgency operation in the Kalapahar forest on 20 April 2005, in front of villagers, and never produced her before any Magistrate. The Court raised the presumption that she had been liquidated in custody and described the violation of Article 21 as patent, incontrovertible and conscience-shocking. It awarded Rs 2,00,000 in compensation, payable by the State but recoverable from the officers responsible, together with Rs 10,000 in costs. It further directed the Director General of Police to register a case within a week and entrust the investigation to the CBI. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We accordingly award compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 (rupees two lakh) payable by the State to be recovered from the officers responsible for causing disappearance of Smti. A Bokajan woman @ a Bokajan woman for which purposes the State may hold an appropriate enquiry into the matter.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1684953/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/987945/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** Bokajan Woman vs State of Assam and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-08-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2007 CriLJ 1017', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1684953/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/987945/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Disappearance in custody presumed killing; Rs 2L + costs verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0026)

## Bokajan Woman v. State of Assam and Others (CW-2006-0008)

**Record:** CW-2006-0008 (compiler id CWC-0668); case SWILLEGA-080
**Title:** Bokajan Woman v. State of Assam and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: B. Sudershan Reddy
**Case number / citation:** (2007) 1 GLR 453
**Judgment:** 2006-08-29 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-04-20 (2005)
**Place:** Karbi Anglong, Assam; city town: Bokajan; police station or unit: Assam Police (Bokajan/Kalapahar operation party); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Additional Superintendent of Police, Assam Police, Bokajan operation (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bokajan woman, age 30 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Gauhati High Court records the following account. add police version (denied picking her up; encounter with ULFA camp, blood trails, no arrest — paras 7-10); keep: habeas petition, 20.4.2005 Kalapahar operation, never produced, Rs 2L to parents via RG in 2 months + recovery after enquiry, DGP case+CBI in 1 week, compliance in 3 weeks, Rs 10,000 costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On the facts and in the circumstances we hold that the violation of Article 21 in the instant case is patent and incontrovertible and it is of a magnitude that shocks the conscience of the court.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/987945/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** Bokajan Woman v. State of Assam and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-08-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2007) 1 GLR 453', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/987945/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC habeas judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; Rs 2L + CBI probe for disappearance matches.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0008)

## Rowta Man vs State of Assam and Ors. (CW-2007-0017)

**Record:** CW-2007-0017 (compiler id CWC-0020); case EAST---NORTHEAST-001
**Title:** Rowta Man vs State of Assam and Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: J. Chelameswar; B.P. Katakey
**Case number / citation:** 2008 (1) GLT 338
**Judgment:** 2007-12-19 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-12-20 (2000)
**Place:** Udalguri, Assam (district at time: Darrang); city town: Rowta; police station or unit: Rowta Outpost, Udalguri Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Officer-in-Charge, respondent No. 6), Rowta Out Post, Udalguri PS (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rowta man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Gauhati High Court records the following account. remove 'Sub-Inspector' naming unless sourced; state police version (para 8). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> it is conclusively proved that a Rowta man died in police custody due to the torture.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1479024/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Rowta Man vs State of Assam and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-12-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2008 (1) GLT 338', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1479024/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench held SI (OC Rowta Out Post) responsible for custodial torture-death of a Rowta man; Rs 3 lakh total (Rs 2.25 lakh balance after AHRC Rs 75,000).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0017)

## Khoomtai Man vs State of Assam and Others (CW-2009-0005)

**Record:** CW-2009-0005 (compiler id CWC-0036); case ASSAM-023
**Title:** Khoomtai Man vs State of Assam and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: Jasti Chelameswar; Hrishikesh Roy
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 25 of 2008 / (2009) 05 GAU CK 0013
**Judgment:** 2009-05-06 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-05-12 (2007)
**Place:** Golaghat, Assam; city town: Khoomtai; police station or unit: Khoomtai Police Out Post, Kamargaon Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (In-charge), Khoomtai Police Out Post, Kamargaon PS, Golaghat; Additional Superintendent of Police (HQ), Golaghat; Superintendent, District Jail, Golaghat (3 in record)
**Victims:** Khoomtai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Gauhati High Court held Assam Police and jail authorities responsible for the custodial death of a Khoomtai man, arrested on 12 May 2007 by Khoomtai outpost police though no FIR named him, and dead in Golaghat jail on 5 June 2007. The Court found all police records of his detention tampered with or fabricated, with arrest-related general diary entries made months after his death, and held the death in State custody was not natural. It awarded Rs 3,00,000 public-law damages to his mother, wife and minor son, recoverable from the officers, and directed registration of a criminal case under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC. Shri \[name withheld\], from whom the court directed recovery of part of the Rs 3,00,000 compensation in equal proportion, is the Superintendent of the District Jail, Golaghat (prisons department), not a police officer. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the death of a Khoomtai man, while in the custody of the State, does not appear to be a natural death and there is an utter failure on the part of the respondent officers of the State in protecting the life and liberty of deceased \[name withheld\].

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/416204/swagmoni-boraik-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Khoomtai Man vs State of Assam and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-05-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2009) 05 GAU CK 0013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/416204/swagmoni-boraik-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Custodial death with fabricated records; Rs 3L damages plus murder-case direction against ASI and jail staff.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2009-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0005)

## Khoirabari Man vs State of Assam and Others (CW-2010-0017)

**Record:** CW-2010-0017 (compiler id CWC-0552); case EAST---NORTHEAST-004
**Title:** Khoirabari Man vs State of Assam and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: Hrishikesh Roy
**Case number / citation:** (2010) 4 GLT 506
**Judgment:** 2010-08-20 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-01-19 (1995)
**Place:** Darrang, Assam; city town: Khoirabari; police station or unit: Khoirabari Police Station, Darrang; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Khoirabari man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Gauhati High Court records the following account. rewrite: continuous custody 16-19.1.95 with manipulated GD entries/PR bond (paras 8.3-8.6, 12, 14); post-mortem inconclusive so torture-death not established with certainty (para 15); State vicariously liable for failure to protect + D.K. Basu violations (paras 16-18); Rs 2,50,000 by 1.11.2010 (para 19); police version (release on PR bond, re-arrest near station, chest pain/faint — para 8.1) must be stated; delete paywall/confidence commentary. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Considering the fact that the deceased was employed as a teacher and was the sole bread earner of the family, I deem it appropriate to order for payment of compensation quantified at Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand only) to be paid by the State on or before 1.11.2010 to the Petitioner.

**Sources (2):** [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaac31607dba3c8ce411d4); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/416189/basanti-kalita-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Khoirabari Man vs State of Assam and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-08-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 250,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2010) 4 GLT 506', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaac31607dba3c8ce411d4', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/416189/basanti-kalita-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Operative part corroborated by 2 mirror snippets (full text paywalled); Rs 2.5L for custodial death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0017)

## Mangaldoi Man vs State of Assam and Others (CW-2011-0013)

**Record:** CW-2011-0013 (compiler id CWC-0030); case ASSAM-017
**Title:** Mangaldoi Man vs State of Assam and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: Madan B. Lokur; H. Baruah
**Case number / citation:** WP(C) No. 6426 of 2002 / (2012) 1 GLD 58
**Judgment:** 2011-07-29 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-07-13 (1999)
**Place:** Darrang, Assam; city town: Mangaldoi; police station or unit: Mangaldoi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Mangaldoi PS, Darrang; Sub-Inspector, Mangaldoi PS, Darrang; Sub-Inspector, Mangaldoi PS, Darrang; Constable (No. 1345), Mangaldoi PS, Darrang (4 in record)
**Victims:** Mangaldoi man; Mangaldoi man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court awarded Rs 1,50,000 to the widow of rickshaw puller a Mangaldoi man, who died after a Mangaldoi police party led by SI apprehended him and his brother at Gariapara on 13 July 1999. The police claimed a mob had manhandled the alleged dacoits, but villagers deposed that the police beat them with rifle butts, branches and kicks, and the post-mortem recorded nine injuries including a fractured rib and blood-filled thoracic cavity. Accepting the magisterial enquiry's conclusion that police beating after apprehension could not be ruled out, the Court held that no clean chit could be given to the personnel and saddled the State with compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the police beating after their apprehension cannot be ruled out and for that no clean chit can be recorded in their favour.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/429007/musstt-anowara-begum-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49520607dba348f0110e8)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Mangaldoi Man vs State of Assam and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-07-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2012) 1 GLD 58', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/429007/musstt-anowara-begum-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49520607dba348f0110e8', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Post-apprehension police beating not ruled out; Rs 1.5L verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0013)

## Smti Mandira Nandi vs \[name withheld\] (CW-2012-0027)

**Record:** CW-2012-0027 (compiler id CWC-0919); case ASSAM-011
**Title:** Smti Mandira Nandi vs \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: B.D. Agarwal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2003 / 2012 CRI. L. J. 2567; (2012) 2 Gau LT 576
**Judgment:** 2012-03-27 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-06-20 (2000)
**Place:** Sribhumi, Assam (district at time: Karimganj); city town: Karimganj; police station or unit: Karimganj Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 323; CrPC 357
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police, Karimganj, Assam Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Karimganj man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Gauhati High Court (B.D. Agarwal, J.) set aside the Magistrate's acquittal and convicted Karimganj SP under Section 323 IPC for the custodial beating of detenue a Karimganj man @ a Karimganj man on 20-21 June 2000. The Court held the trial court had discarded one-sided prosecution evidence on flimsy grounds despite corroboration by the co-detenue eyewitness and three government doctors, and found the SP had conspired to have the victim arrested in a second non-bailable FIR after he joined a demand for the SP's transfer. Taking a lenient view on sentence after 12 years, the Court imposed Rs. 1,000 fine plus Rs. 1,00,000 compensation to the injured under Section 357 CrPC, with six months' simple imprisonment in default of deposit within two months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I hold that the complainant has adduced sufficient corroborative evidence to prove the allegation of causing simple hurt upon PW-3. Consequently, the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The accused/opposite party is convicted under section 323 IPC.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81246444/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaabe6607dba3c8ce409e2); [ghconline.gov.in](https://ghconline.gov.in/JDMTMar12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Smti Mandira Nandi vs \[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-03-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2012 CRI. L. J. 2567; (2012) 2 Gau LT 576', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81246444/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaabe6607dba3c8ce409e2', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://ghconline.gov.in/JDMTMar12.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: SP convicted u/s 323 IPC on reversal of acquittal; fine + Rs 1 lakh compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2012-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0027)

## Mushalpur Man vs State of Assam and Others (CW-2012-0014)

**Record:** CW-2012-0014 (compiler id CWC-0028); case ASSAM-014
**Title:** Mushalpur Man vs State of Assam and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: Amitava Roy; Anima Hazarika
**Case number / citation:** WP(C) No. 2427 of 2008 / (2013) 1 GLT 610
**Judgment:** 2012-11-09 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-10-25 (2007)
**Place:** Baksa, Assam; city town: Mushalpur; police station or unit: Mushalpur Out Post; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Mushalpur OP, Baksa; Home Guard, Mushalpur OP, Baksa (2 in record)
**Victims:** Mushalpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court awarded Rs 1,50,000 to the widow of head teacher a Mushalpur man, who died in custody at Mushalpur Out Post on 26 October 2007 after being detained the previous day for interrogation. While unconvinced of physical torture, the Court held the police grossly negligent: a Home Guard let the detainee carry a gamosa into the toilet, no arrest memo was prepared, the family was never informed, and the post-mortem was conducted without them. The Court found the detainee's right to reputation and the D.K. Basu safeguards under Articles 21 and 22(1) infringed without justifiable cause. The court found Home Guard grossly negligent, but he is a Home Guard volunteer under whose vigil the deceased was left at Mushalpur Police Out Post, not a member of the police force. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> it is admitted by the respondents that Sri \[name withheld\], Home Guard under whose vigil and control the deceased had been left at the Mushalpur Police Out Post had been grossly negligent in allowing him to carry a 'Gamosa' with him to the toilet

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/415827/damayanti-das-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=602102168000&title=damayanti-das-vs-state-of-assam)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Mushalpur Man vs State of Assam and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-11-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2013) 1 GLT 610', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/415827/damayanti-das-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=602102168000&title=damayanti-das-vs-state-of-assam', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Custodial negligence (gamosa suicide); Rs 1.5L verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0014)

## Union of India and Others vs CISF Constable (CW-2013-0020)

**Record:** CW-2013-0020 (compiler id CWC-1252); case GAP3-77-001
**Title:** Union of India and Others vs CISF Constable
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: Sujoy Paul; Sheel Nagu
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal No. 763 of 2007 / (2013) ILR (MP) 542; (2013) 2 JLJ 15; (2013) LabIC 3453; (2013) 2 MPHT 393; (2013) 3 MPLJ 378; (2013) 02 MP CK 0114
**Judgment:** 2013-02-04 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-09-22 (2001)
**Place:** Jorhat, Assam; city town: Jorhat; police station or unit: CISF Unit, ONGC Jorhat; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CISF Unit, ONGC Jorhat (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. CISF Constable of the ONGC Jorhat unit faced three charges that on 22 September 2001, under the influence of liquor, he created a nuisance in the Jorhat mess abusing a head constable and constable, insulted two inspectors by throwing his cap, belt and shirt at them, and obstructed duty. A detailed departmental enquiry found the charges proved and he was dismissed from service on 15 January 2002, but a single judge set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement without back wages. The Division Bench held judicial review could not reappreciate the evidence, that off-duty conduct with a nexus to employment constitutes misconduct, and that dismissal was not harsh for a member of an armed force. The Court set aside the single judge's order and affirmed the dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is accordingly set aside. The punishment inflicted by the employer is affirmed. Appeal is allowed.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/598914/union-of-india-and-others-vs-sukhbir-singh-bais/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Union of India and Others vs CISF Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-02-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2013) ILR (MP) 542; (2013) 2 JLJ 15; (2013) LabIC 3453; (2013) 2 MPHT 393; (2013) 3 MPLJ 378; (2013) 02 MP CK 0114', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/598914/union-of-india-and-others-vs-sukhbir-singh-bais/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; CISF constable dismissal for drunken misconduct affirmed (internal indiscipline, no civilian victim).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0020)

## CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2016-0030)

**Record:** CW-2016-0030 (compiler id CWC-1017); case GAP3-105-018
**Title:** CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: I. A. Ansari; Chakradhari Sharan Singh
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal No. 906 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2016-06-23 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-09-21 (2005)
**Place:** Bongaigaon, Assam; city town: Dhaligaon; police station or unit: F/116 Battalion, CRPF, Dhaligaon; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, F/116 Battalion, CRPF (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. \[name withheld\], a CRPF constable of F/116 Battalion at Dhaligaon, Assam, challenged his June 2006 dismissal for deserting camp twice for 14 and 84 days while undergoing a confinement punishment. The court found he had initially participated in the enquiry and then deliberately absented himself despite notices sent to his home address, so the ex parte conclusion of proceedings was proper. The court found no infirmity in the Single Bench order dismissing his writ petition. The appeal was dismissed and the dismissal stands.

> The punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge framed against the appellant which came to be proved in a departmental enquiry.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156786043/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-06-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Letters Patent Appeal No. 906 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156786043/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC Division Bench dismissed the LPA; dismissal of CRPF constable for desertion during confinement stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0030)

## CISF Constable vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2017-0022)

**Record:** CW-2017-0022 (compiler id CWC-1023); case GAP3-105-024
**Title:** CISF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Rakesh Kumar
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4508 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2017-04-26 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-04-01 (2006)
**Place:** Dibrugarh, Assam; city town: Duliajan; police station or unit: CISF, internal security duty, Oil Duliajan; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CISF (DM Battalion Mundali; internal security duty, Oil Duliajan) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Duliajan resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. \[name withheld\], CISF Constable. 894340365 on internal security duty at Oil Duliajan, was charge-sheeted for abusing Head Constable on 01.04.2006 and threatening on the counting parade that he could use his service weapon and 100 rounds to kill him, against a record of one major and eleven minor punishments. The Commandant dismissed him on 13.02.2007 after a full departmental proceeding; the DIG confirmed the dismissal on 29.05.2007 and the IG rejected his revision on 23.05.2008. He challenged the orders before the Patna High Court under Article 226. The Court found full procedure had been followed with the enquiry report supplied, the charges stood admitted leaving no scope to differ on proof, and no illegality in decision-making was shown. The writ petition was dismissed and the dismissal from service stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Since nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court regarding any illegality in taking decision, it would be difficult for this Court to interfere with either of the orders. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to pass favourable order.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40897329/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=717102340100&Title=A-K-PANDEY-ALIAS-AJIT-KUMAR-PANDEY-Vs.-UNION-OF-INDIA-THROUGH-DIRECTOR-GENERAL)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** CISF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-04-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4508 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40897329/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=717102340100&Title=A-K-PANDEY-ALIAS-AJIT-KUMAR-PANDEY-Vs.-UNION-OF-INDIA-THROUGH-DIRECTOR-GENERAL', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary source read; HC dismissed writ, upholding CISF constable's dismissal for threatening a superior.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0022)

## Guwahati Man vs Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) and Others (CW-2018-0010)

**Record:** CW-2018-0010 (compiler id CWC-0037); case ASSAM-024
**Title:** Guwahati Man vs Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court
**Case number / citation:** Not stated
**Judgment:** 2018-08-21 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-08-21 (2011)
**Place:** Kamrup Metropolitan, Assam; city town: Guwahati; police station or unit: Panbazar Police Station, Guwahati; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Panbazar Police Station, Guwahati (1 in record)
**Victims:** Guwahati man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court awarded Rs 2,00,000 compensation to advocate's clerk a Guwahati man for unauthorised detention and torture at Panbazar Police Station from 21 to 23 August 2011. The Court found he was kept confined without arrest and subjected to inhuman torture in connection with a bail-bond forgery probe ordered on a complaint by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, then let off. It directed the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati City to deposit the amount with the Registry within 60 days. The full judgment text sits behind paywalls; the operative direction is quoted identically in two independent legal databases. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Detention of the petitioner in police custody from 3 am of 22.8.2011 to 2:00 p.m. of 23.8.2011 and the violence inflicted upon him during that period in custody is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. It is not a case of negligence as opined by the Inquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding but is a case of grave misconduct.

**Sources (2):** [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e740f699fca194121fad383); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=608102394100&title=ajit-medhi-vs-chief-judicial-magistrate)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** Guwahati Man vs Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-08-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Gauhati High Court judgment 2018-08-21', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e740f699fca194121fad383', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=608102394100&title=ajit-medhi-vs-chief-judicial-magistrate', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Full text paywalled; detention/torture facts and Rs 2L direction verified verbatim in two databases.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2018-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0010)

## Guwahati Police IPS officer v. Union of India & Ors. (CW-2023-0042)

**Record:** CW-2023-0042 (compiler id CWC-1196); case GAP3-44-001
**Title:** Guwahati Police IPS officer v. Union of India & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Satish Chandra Sharma; Sanjeev Sachdeva
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 10539/2021 (with W.P.(C) 10486/2021, 10493/2021, 10519/2021) / 2023:DHC:3630-DB
**Judgment:** 2023-05-24 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2016-03-02 (2016)
**Place:** Kamrup Metropolitan, Assam; city town: Guwahati; police station or unit: NEEPCO (CVO on central deputation); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** AIS (Conduct) Rules 1968 r.3(1); AIS (Conduct) Rules 1968 r.6; AIS (Conduct) Rules 1968 r.7; AIS (Conduct) Rules 1968 r.9; AIS (Conduct) Rules 1968 r.17
**Officers (gated display forms):** IPS officer, IPS (Gujarat cadre; CVO, NEEPCO on central deputation) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. IPS officer of the Gujarat cadre, serving as CVO of NEEPCO on central deputation, gave an interview to India Today on 2-3 March 2016 in official NEEPCO premises at Guwahati without authority, commenting on the Ishrat Jahan encounter investigation and official matters. Charge memos of 2016 and 2018 led to an inquiry that held Articles 1 to 4 proved, the UPSC advised the proved charges constituted grave misconduct, and the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on 30.08.2022. The Delhi High Court held the findings were not based on no evidence, found no procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice, and dismissed his writ petition, rendering the three connected petitions infructuous. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Further, in view of the fact that the Petitioner has not been able to show any procedural irregularity or violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings returned by the Inquiry Authority or the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/judgementphp-2-473522.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-dismissal-ips-officer-satish-chandra-verma-ishrat-jahan-case-229351)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 86
**display title redacted:** Guwahati Police IPS officer v. Union of India & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-05-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2023:DHC:3630-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/judgementphp-2-473522.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-dismissal-ips-officer-satish-chandra-verma-ishrat-jahan-case-229351', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** IPS officer's dismissal for unauthorised press interaction upheld; internal service-discipline matter, no civilian victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0042](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0042)

## Guwahati Man vs The State of Assam and 3 Ors (CW-2023-0032)

**Record:** CW-2023-0032 (compiler id CWC-0027); case ASSAM-013; aliases: CWC-0870; CWC-1430
**Title:** Guwahati Man vs The State of Assam and 3 Ors
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: Devashis Baruah
**Case number / citation:** WP(C)/2783/2021 / 2023 SCC OnLine Gau 4244
**Judgment:** 2023-12-20 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2016-10-05 (2016)
**Place:** Kamrup Metropolitan, Assam; city town: Guwahati; police station or unit: Panbazar Police Station, Guwahati; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Panbazar Police Station, Guwahati (1 in record)
**Victims:** Guwahati man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court held that the handcuffing and parading of advocate a Guwahati man, without just cause being shown, violated his human rights under Article 21 and demeaned his dignity to practise his profession. Called to Panbazar Police Station on 5 October 2016, he was detained, arrested in PS Case No. 435/2016, handcuffed for a hospital examination and paraded in iron fetters from the court to Central Jail Guwahati, in breach of the Supreme Court's guidelines. The Court noted that the Assam Human Rights Commission had closed his complaint only because the charged officer had died. Applying strict liability, the Court directed the authorities to pay him Rs 5,00,000 within two months and recommended amending the Assam Police Manual on handcuffing. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Be that as it may, the Petitioner is an Advocate and handcuffing the Petitioner and parading him by taking him to the Court and thereafter back to the jail with iron fetters that too without just cause being shown, not only violates the human rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution but also demeans his dignity and prestige to carry out his profession of advocacy.

**Sources (7):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/display-5watermark-1571986.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gauhati-high-court/gauhati-high-court-orders-assam-police-pay-compensation-advocate-unjust-handcuffing-article-21-constitution-of-india-245139); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/sites/default/files/2023-12/Handcuffing%20Adv-%20Gauhati%20HC.pdf); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/amp/news-updates/gauhati-high-court-orders-police-pay-rs-5-lakh-compensation-advocate-handcuffing-without-just-cause); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/01/03/state-compensation-liability-advocate-handcuffing-just-cause-gauhati-hc-legal-news/); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/gauhati-high-court-orders-500000-compensation-for-unjust-handcuffing-of-advocate-by-assam-police-1511018); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/gau-hc-grants-compensation-for-handcuffing-511527.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** Guwahati Man vs The State of Assam and 3 Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Audit fix: duplicate record CW-2023-0055 (same court, case number and judgment date) merged into this record; its sources are kept here and its URL redirects here.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-12-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023 SCC OnLine Gau 4244', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-25
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/display-5watermark-1571986.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gauhati-high-court/gauhati-high-court-orders-assam-police-pay-compensation-advocate-unjust-handcuffing-article-21-constitution-of-india-245139', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/sites/default/files/2023-12/Handcuffing%20Adv-%20Gauhati%20HC.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/amp/news-updates/gauhati-high-court-orders-police-pay-rs-5-lakh-compensation-advocate-handcuffing-without-just-cause', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/01/03/state-compensation-liability-advocate-handcuffing-just-cause-gauhati-hc-legal-news/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/gauhati-high-court-orders-500000-compensation-for-unjust-handcuffing-of-advocate-by-assam-police-1511018', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Unjust handcuffing/parading of advocate; Rs 5L verified from judgment PDF.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0032)

## Golaghat Police Armed Branch Constable vs The State of Assam and 3 Ors (CW-2024-0008)

**Record:** CW-2024-0008 (compiler id CWC-0033); case ASSAM-020
**Title:** Golaghat Police Armed Branch Constable vs The State of Assam and 3 Ors
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: N. Unni Krishnan Nair
**Case number / citation:** WP(C)/4092/2013
**Judgment:** 2024-05-10 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-01-01 (2003)
**Place:** Golaghat, Assam; police station or unit: Golaghat DEF; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Police Act s.7; IPC 376; IPC 493
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Branch Constable, Golaghat DEF (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Gauhati High Court upheld the removal from service of Armed Branch Constable of Golaghat DEF for misconduct. Served a show-cause notice in September 2003 for maintaining an illegal relationship with a named woman while posted for duty, he was removed by the SP Golaghat in August 2005, affirmed by the DIG in May 2006. The Court held the departmental charge stood on a footing different from the connected criminal case in which he was later acquitted, was substantiated by material on record, and that delay further disentitled him. The writ petition was dismissed as bereft of merit. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In that view of the matter, the writ petition is hereby held to be bereft of merit and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154346986/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 30
**display title redacted:** Golaghat Police Armed Branch Constable vs The State of Assam and 3 Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-05-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'WP(C)/4092/2013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154346986/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Removal of constable for misconduct upheld; writ dismissed, verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0008)

## Silapathar Man v. State of Assam & 3 Ors. (CW-2024-0037)

**Record:** CW-2024-0037 (compiler id CWC-0867); case GAP2-44-002
**Title:** Silapathar Man v. State of Assam & 3 Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: Manash Ranjan Pathak; Mitali Thakuria
**Case number / citation:** WP(C)/3604/2016
**Judgment:** 2024-05-21 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2015-10-30 (2015)
**Place:** Dhemaji, Assam; city town: Silapathar; police station or unit: Silapathar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Assam Forest Regulation Act ss.40/41/49; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Assam Police escort party (Dhemaji) (0 in record)
**Victims:** Silapathar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court held the State of Assam liable to pay Rs.3,00,000 compensation to the next of kin of undertrial a Silapathar man, who died on 30 October 2015 after falling from a running escort bus near Jalakiasuti while being brought back from Jonai court to Dhemaji District Jail in police custody. The Court recorded that the escorting police personnel had already faced departmental proceedings and been punished with stoppage of two annual increments. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, it held that persons suffering unnatural death in custody are victims whose next of kin are entitled to compensation. Since the petitioner's identity as the father was disputed, the Court directed the amount to be deposited before the District & Sessions Judge, Dhemaji within two months for disbursement only after verification and identification. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of above and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (supra) and considering the fact that the deceased was in police custody when the incident took place, we are of the considered opinion that the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 (three) Lakhs is found to be reasonable and justified and that the State authorities are liable to pay the said compensation amount to the next of kin of the deceased \[name withheld\].

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54648071/); [lawyerenews.com](https://lawyerenews.com/legal_detail/human-rights-are-universal-gauhati-high-court-orders-compensation-in-custodial-death-case)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Silapathar Man v. State of Assam & 3 Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-05-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'WP(C)/3604/2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54648071/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawyerenews.com/legal_detail/human-rights-are-universal-gauhati-high-court-orders-compensation-in-custodial-death-case', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC ordered Rs.3 lakh compensation for undertrial's death in police escort custody; escort staff already penalised departmentally.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0037)

## Sonitpur Man vs The State of Assam and Ors (CW-2025-0075)

**Record:** CW-2025-0075 (compiler id CWC-1378); case cop-as-hc-1
**Title:** Sonitpur Man vs The State of Assam and Ors
**Court:** The Gauhati High Court; judges: Kardak Ete
**Case number / citation:** WP(C)/6349/2017 / 2025:GAU-AS:711
**Judgment:** 2025-01-23 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2017-04-20 (2017)
**Place:** Sonitpur, Assam; police station or unit: Mahabhairab police outpost, Tezpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** police personnel, Mahabhairab police outpost / Assam Police, Tezpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Sonitpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court held that the petitioner, a bystander near a road-accident protest site, suffered a bullet injury when the police opened fire. The High Court held that the firing was done without warning or superior orders and amounted to gross state violence. The High Court directed the respondent authorities to pay Rs.5,00,000 compensation in exercise of public-law jurisdiction. The High Court made clear the award was in addition to any other legal remedy available to the petitioner.

> I am inclined to direct that petitionerbe paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only as compensation.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71316095/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** Para 24
**display title redacted:** Sonitpur Man vs The State of Assam and Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-01-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'The Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2025:GAU-AS:711', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71316095/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0075](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0075)

## Baithalangso Police Sub-Inspector (Probationer) vs The State of Assam and 4 Ors (CW-2025-0014)

**Record:** CW-2025-0014 (compiler id CWC-0034); case ASSAM-021
**Title:** Baithalangso Police Sub-Inspector (Probationer) vs The State of Assam and 4 Ors
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: N. Unni Krishnan Nair
**Case number / citation:** WP(C)/1630/2024 / 2025:GAU-AS:10386
**Judgment:** 2025-07-29 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2023-05-31 (2023)
**Place:** West Karbi Anglong, Assam; city town: Baithalangso; police station or unit: Baithalangso Police Station (naka duty at Umru); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Probationer), Baithalangso Police Station, West Karbi Anglong (1 in record)
**Victims:** Baithalangso resident; Baithalangso resident; Baithalangso resident (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition of probationer Sub-Inspector and upheld his removal from service for extortion committed during naka duty at Umru on 31 May 2023. The Court found that personnel under his command took Rs 30,000 from the pocket of bike-rider a Baithalangso resident, with further extortion from two other riders proved through eleven witnesses in the departmental enquiry. It held that his subsequent discharge in PRC No. 234/2023 at the charge-framing stage had no consequence for the already concluded departmental proceedings and that the penalty was not disproportionate. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner, in the considered view of this Court, is not disproportionate to the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the said Show Cause Notice, dated 09-07-2023, and established in the enquiry.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98298987/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 51
**display title redacted:** Baithalangso Police Sub-Inspector (Probationer) vs The State of Assam and 4 Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-07-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2025:GAU-AS:10386', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98298987/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; removal for Rs 30,000 extortion upheld, criminal discharge held irrelevant to concluded enquiry.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0014)

## Kokrajhar Man vs The Union of India and 7 Ors (CW-2026-0002)

**Record:** CW-2026-0002 (compiler id CWC-0032); case ASSAM-019; aliases: CWC-1437
**Title:** Kokrajhar Man vs The Union of India and 7 Ors
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: Kalyan Rai Surana; Rajesh Mazumdar
**Case number / citation:** WP(C)/1098/2017 / 2026:GAU-AS:418-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-01-08 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2016-12-28 (2016)
**Place:** Kokrajhar, Assam; police station or unit: Joint Assam Police-Army (7th Sikh LI) ambush party, Bismuri/Kokrajhar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kokrajhar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25 lakh (Rs 25,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court held that the killing of cultivator a Kokrajhar man in a joint police-Army ambush near Bismuri outpost on 28 December 2016 was an avoidable encounter infringing Article 21. While stopping short of calling the ambush staged, the Court found laxity on intelligence inputs and a sudden, hurried, undocumented ambush that created the exchange of fire in which the deceased was shot. As palliative relief, without prejudice to other remedies, it directed the Union of India and the State of Assam to pay Rs 5,00,000 each to the widow (Rs 10,00,000) and Rs 2,50,000 each to every surviving child (Rs 5,00,000 per child), within one month. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The laxity displayed while acting on the intelligence inputs and the sudden and hurried decision to lay an undocumented ambush played a vital role in creating a situation which led to exchange of fire between the deceased and the police, leading to his death. We stop short of concluding that the ambush was laid to achieve predicted outcomes.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120284705/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/display-20-653766.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gauhati-high-court/gauhati-high-court-grants-25-lakh-compensation-family-man-killed-during-police-operation-521769)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 33
**display title redacted:** Kokrajhar Man vs The Union of India and 7 Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-01-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026:GAU-AS:418-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120284705/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/display-20-653766.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gauhati-high-court/gauhati-high-court-grants-25-lakh-compensation-family-man-killed-during-police-operation-521769', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Avoidable encounter violated Art 21; Rs 25L total (agent missed widow's 10L).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0002)

## Haflong Woman vs The State of Assam and 4 Ors (CW-2026-0025)

**Record:** CW-2026-0025 (compiler id CWC-0016); case SWENFORC-010
**Title:** Haflong Woman vs The State of Assam and 4 Ors
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: K.R. Surana; Shamima Jahan
**Case number / citation:** WP(C)/392/2024 / 2026:GAU-AS:7734-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-06-03 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2020-04-24 (2020)
**Place:** Dima Hasao, Assam; city town: Haflong; police station or unit: Sarkari Bagan Town Outpost, Haflong; SP Office, Dima Hasao; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 365; IPC 302; IPC 304A; IPC 201; IPC 34; Assam Police Act 2007 s.98(A); Assam Police Act 2007 s.99(3); Assam Police Act 2007 s.99(5)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police (then SP, Dima Hasao), Dima Hasao, Assam Police; Deputy Superintendent of Police (then DySP), Dima Hasao, Assam Police; Sub-Inspector, Dima Hasao, Assam Police; Constable, Assam Battalion; Constable, Assam Battalion; Constable, Assam Battalion; Constable, Assam Battalion (7 in record)
**Victims:** Haflong man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25 lakh (Rs 25,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Division Bench held seven Assam Police personnel, led by the then Superintendent of Police \[name withheld\], involved in the kidnapping, torture and murder in custody of a Haflong man, picked up at gunpoint from his home on 24 April 2020. Relying on CID Charge Sheet No. 6 of 2021, the Court found the victim was interrogated and tortured in the SP office CDR room, beaten with lathis, died in a police vehicle on 25 April 2020, and his body was buried in a jungle while General Diary pages were torn to destroy evidence. Holding the Article 21 violation established without awaiting the criminal trial, the Court awarded Rs 20 lakh in addition to Rs 5 lakh interim already paid (Rs 25 lakh total palliative award), recoverable from erring officials found guilty. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The investigation was conducted and the police officials namely \[name withheld\], the then Superintendent of Police, \[name withheld\], the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, \[name withheld\], the then Sub-inspector of Police, Constable \[name withheld\], C/N \[name withheld\], Constable \[name withheld\], C/N \[name withheld\], were found involved in the kidnapping, torture and murder of the victim.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112938816/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Haflong Woman vs The State of Assam and 4 Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-06-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026:GAU-AS:7734-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112938816/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench held 7 Assam Police personnel led by then SP Dima Hasao responsible for kidnapping, torture and custodial murder of a Haflong man; Rs 25 lakh total palliative award.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0025)

## Maibang Resident v. State of Assam & Ors. (CW-2026-0036)

**Record:** CW-2026-0036 (compiler id CWC-0527); case SWDISPRO-024; aliases: CWC-0649
**Title:** Maibang Resident v. State of Assam & Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: Kalyan Rai Surana; N. Unni Krishnan Nair
**Case number / citation:** WP(C) No. 652 of 2018 / 2026:GAU-AS:12436
**Judgment:** 2026-08-26 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2018-01-25 (2018)
**Place:** Dima Hasao, Assam; city town: Maibang; police station or unit: Assam Police (Dima Hasao); Maibang PS; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Maibang resident; Maibang resident; Maibang woman; Maibang resident; Maibang resident (5 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 12 lakh (Rs 12,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Gauhati High Court records the following account. On 25 January 2018, an anti-Greater Nagalim protest at Maibang Railway Station turned violent with railway property damaged and stones pelted, and police firing from the platform killed a Maibang resident and a Maibang resident and seriously injured a Maibang woman, a Maibang resident and a Maibang resident The Court declined to hold the firing unprovoked but found the above-waist bullet injuries established excessive force violating the victims' fundamental rights, holding sovereign immunity no defence to such violations. It awarded Rs 3,00,000 each to the families of the two deceased and Rs 2,00,000 each to the three injured (Rs 12,00,000 total) within three months, borne by the State. Subcategory corrected from fake encounter to disproportionate force: this was excessive crowd-control firing, not a staged encounter. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The nature of injuries, projected to have been suffered by the victims, would go to reveal that either on account of the lack of understanding of the situation and/or being so distracted by the stone pelting incident occasioning in the matter, the firing incident had also resulted in the victims suffering bullet injuries, above their waist also. Accordingly, in view of the injuries sustained by the petitioners, a case of violation of their fundamental rights is found to have been made out.

**Sources (4):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/29/2026gau-as12436-verdictum-1783356.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gauhati-high-court/gauhati-high-court-police-firing-maibang-protest-violated-victims-fundamental-rights-court-award-12-lakh-compensation-549680); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/guwahati-high-court/2026-gauas-12436-richard-sangyung-v-state-of-assam-1620866); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/10/displayphp-699497.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Protest policing', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Maibang Resident v. State of Assam & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026:GAU-AS:12436', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/29/2026gau-as12436-verdictum-1783356.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gauhati-high-court/gauhati-high-court-police-firing-maibang-protest-violated-victims-fundamental-rights-court-award-12-lakh-compensation-549680', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/guwahati-high-court/2026-gauas-12436-richard-sangyung-v-state-of-assam-1620866', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/10/displayphp-699497.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Above-waist bullet injuries showed excessive force on Maibang protesters; Rs 12L total.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0036)

## Maibang Resident vs The State of Assam and 4 Ors (CW-2026-0055)

**Record:** CW-2026-0055 (compiler id CWC-0918); case ASSAM-010
**Title:** Maibang Resident vs The State of Assam and 4 Ors
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: Kalyan Rai Surana; N. Unni Krishnan Nair
**Case number / citation:** WP(C)/652/2018 / 2026:GAU-AS:12436
**Judgment:** 2026-08-26 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2018-01-25 (2018)
**Place:** Dima Hasao, Assam; city town: Maibang; police station or unit: Assam Police firing party, Maibang railway station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Maibang resident; Maibang resident; Maibang resident; Maibang resident; Maibang resident (5 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 12 lakh (Rs 12,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court Division Bench held that Assam Police firing on protesters at Maibang railway station on 25 January 2018 violated the victims' fundamental rights, awarding Rs. 3 lakh each to the families of the two deceased and Rs. 2 lakh each to three seriously injured persons (Rs. 12 lakh total), payable within three months. The Court accepted that protesters had turned violent and pelted stones, but found police fired from the railway platform onto protesters on the tracks causing bullet injuries above the waist, showing lack of understanding of the situation. It held the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to fundamental-rights violations and that the State, not individual personnel, would bear the exemplary public-law damages. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The nature of injuries, projected to have been suffered by the victims, would go to reveal that either on account of the lack of understanding of the situation and/ or being so distracted by the stone pelting incident occasioning in the matter, the firing incident had also resulted in the victims suffering bullet injuries, above their waist also. Accordingly, in view of the injuries sustained by the petitioners, a case of violation of their fundamental rights is found to have been made out.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157052802/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gauhati-high-court/gauhati-high-court-police-firing-maibang-protest-violated-victims-fundamental-rights-court-award-12-lakh-compensation-549680); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/guwahati-high-court/2026-gauas-12436-richard-sangyung-v-state-of-assam-1620866)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Protest policing', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Maibang Resident vs The State of Assam and 4 Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026:GAU-AS:12436', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157052802/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gauhati-high-court/gauhati-high-court-police-firing-maibang-protest-violated-victims-fundamental-rights-court-award-12-lakh-compensation-549680', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/guwahati-high-court/2026-gauas-12436-richard-sangyung-v-state-of-assam-1620866', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: Maibang firing violated Art 21, Rs 12 lakh total compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0055](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0055)

## Cachar Man vs The State Of Assam And 17 Ors (CW-2026-0092)

**Record:** CW-2026-0092 (compiler id CWC-1377); case cop-as-hc-0
**Title:** Cachar Man vs The State Of Assam And 17 Ors
**Court:** The Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh); judges: Kalyan Rai Surana; Susmita Phukan Khaund
**Case number / citation:** WP(C)/4329/2015 / 2026:GAU-AS:13808-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-09-17 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-07-07 (2012)
**Place:** Cachar, Assam; police station or unit: Katigorah Police Station; Kalain Patrol Post; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** 147/148/149/353/336/323; 448/325/506/354/302/34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Katigorah Police Station / Kalain Patrol Post (1 in record)
**Victims:** Cachar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court held that the arrest of the 60-year-old man picked up after midnight was illegal. The High Court held that the man had died while in illegal police custody after being taken to Kalain Patrol Post. The High Court directed the State to pay Rs.5,00,000 as palliative compensation to the petitioner for distribution among the heirs. The High Court left criminal liability arising from the related case to the trial court and allowed the State to recover from officials found at fault.

> Thus, the arrest of Md. \[name withheld\], since deceased, was illegal

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39934608/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** Para 11
**display title redacted:** Cachar Man vs The State Of Assam And 17 Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'The Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The The Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2026:GAU-AS:13808-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39934608/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** The judgment is verified: Gauhati High Court (Surana & Phukan Khaund JJ.), WP(C)/4329/2015, decided 17.09.2026, Cachar district; illegal-arrest quote is verbatim at para 11; death-in-police-custody finding at paras 13/21; compensation Rs.5,00,000 confirmed. However, the officers field records role 'held_liable', which the judgment does not support: the Court did NOT hold any named officer liable (it expressly left criminal liability to the pending complaint case and only gave the State liberty to recover from officials found guilty in departmental proceedings). The rank/unit (Officer-in-Charge, Katigorah PS / Kalain Patrol Post) is accurate, but the role must be corrected.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0092](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0092)

## Katauna Resident and Anr. vs The State of Bihar and Ors. (CW-2026-0058)

**Record:** CW-2026-0058 (compiler id CWC-0882); case GAP2-48-005
**Title:** Katauna Resident and Anr. vs The State of Bihar and Ors.
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad; Sunil Dutta Mishra
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3363 of 2025
**Judgment:** Date not stated (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-10-10 (2025)
**Place:** Nalanda, Bihar; city town: Katauna; police station or unit: Giriyak Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Bihar Crime Control Act 2024 s.3(3)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police, Nalanda; Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Rajgir, Nalanda; Station House Officer, Giriyak Police Station, Nalanda (3 in record)
**Victims:** Katauna resident; Katauna resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court quashed District Magistrate orders imposing Section 3(3) Bihar Crime Control Act, 2024 restrictions on two Nalanda men, which required thrice-weekly attendance at Silao police station 40 km from home. The court held the orders were passed without subjective satisfaction or verification beyond an unverified police sanha, and that the SP Nalanda, the SDPO and the SHO police station had acted in haste in ignorance of the law, apparently to keep the petitioners out of the Assembly Election. It directed the State to pay each petitioner 1,00,000 compensation plus Rs 10,000 litigation costs within one month, recoverable from the erring officials after hearing. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We are constrained to observe that even the SP, Nalanda, the SDPO, Nalanda and the SHO, Giriyak Police Station, all have acted in haste without verification of the allegations made in the Sanha and they, being police officers, have shown complete ignorance of the law on the subject.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162543170/); [thebarbulletin.com](https://thebarbulletin.com/patna-hc-quashes-bihar-crime-control-act-orders-compensation/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 39
**display title redacted:** Katauna Resident and Anr. vs The State of Bihar and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3363 of 2025', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162543170/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://thebarbulletin.com/patna-hc-quashes-bihar-crime-control-act-orders-compensation/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC quashed unverified BCC Act restrictions, held SP/SDPO/SHO acted in haste, awarded Rs 1L plus costs to each petitioner.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0058](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0058)

## Arwal Resident v. State of Bihar and Ors. (CW-1986-0001)

**Record:** CW-1986-0001 (compiler id CWC-0344); case SUPREM-029
**Title:** Arwal Resident v. State of Bihar and Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 369 of 1986 / (1987) 1 SCC 265; AIR 1987 SC 355
**Judgment:** 1986-12-19 (1986, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1986-04-19 (1986)
**Place:** Arwal, Bihar (district at time: Gaya); city town: Arwal; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 32
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police, Bihar Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (21 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court directed Bihar to pay Rs 20,000 for every death and Rs 5,000 for every injured person from the 19 April 1986 Arwal police firing, adjusting sums already paid, in a petition alleging the SP-led force surrounded 600-700 peaceful peasants at Gandhi Library and opened fire without warning, killing at least 21 including children. The Court treated such compensation as the ordinary consequence of police-firing deaths, raising the State Rs 10,000 ex gratia to the normal scale. It left the justification for the firing and the challenge to Arwal PS Case 59 of 1986 allegedly foisted on innocents including the dead to the pending Patna High Court writ. It also directed the pending police-case investigation to finish within three months.

> for every case of death compensation of Rupees twenty thousand and for every injured person compensation of Rupees five thousand shall be paid.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/273558/); [pub-138b930c26524cb4bf6e9099898947c0.r2.dev](https://pub-138b930c26524cb4bf6e9099898947c0.r2.dev/judgments/1986/Peoples__Union_For_Democratic_Rights_vs_State_Of_Bihar_Ors_on_19_December_1986.PDF)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Arwal Resident v. State of Bihar and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1986-12-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 20,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1987) 1 SCC 265; AIR 1987 SC 355', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/273558/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://pub-138b930c26524cb4bf6e9099898947c0.r2.dev/judgments/1986/Peoples__Union_For_Democratic_Rights_vs_State_Of_Bihar_Ors_on_19_December_1986.PDF', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs 20k per death + Rs 5k per injury for Arwal police firing; justification left to Patna HC.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1986-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1986-0001)

## Sasaram Man v. State of Bihar and Others (CW-1997-0015)

**Record:** CW-1997-0015 (compiler id CWC-0969); case GAP3-100-002
**Title:** Sasaram Man v. State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Choudhary S.N. Mishra
**Case number / citation:** Cr.W.J.C. No. 859 of 1996 / (1997) 2 BLJR 1477 : (1997) 1 PLJR 1022
**Judgment:** 1997-05-14 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-10-14 (1996)
**Place:** Rohtas, Bihar; city town: Sasaram; police station or unit: Sasaram jail escort party (Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 558/96); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 32 (discussed); IPC 302/307/324/34 + Arms Act s.27 (Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 558/96 against private accused, as recorded)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named
**Victims:** Sasaram man, age 23 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court allowed the widow's writ after undertrial a Sasaram man, aged 23, was shot dead by assailants while handcuffed in a police escort at the Sasaram court premises on 14 October 1996. The court held the State and its instrumentalities responsible for the negligent failure to protect a prisoner in police custody, following Rudul Sah and Nilabati Behera. It directed the State to deposit Rs 1 lakh with the Registrar General within six weeks, Rs 50,000 payable to the widow and Rs 50,000 held in fixed deposit until her minor daughter attains majority. The killers were private accused (Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 558/96); the police liability was custodial failure to protect. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The husband of the petitioner was killed under handcuffs while he was in police custody. In such situation the State has to answer for every unlawful and negligent act committed by its instrumentilities and the State and its instrumentalities are to be held responsible for such act on their part.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/741060/ajmeri-khatoon-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent/); [legalindia.com](https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/ajmeri-khatoon-vs-state-of-bihar-and-ors-on-14-may-1997)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Sasaram Man v. State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-05-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1997) 2 BLJR 1477 : (1997) 1 PLJR 1022', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/741060/ajmeri-khatoon-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/ajmeri-khatoon-vs-state-of-bihar-and-ors-on-14-may-1997', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ allowed; Rs 1 lakh compensation for failure to protect handcuffed undertrial killed in police custody.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0015)

## Jagdishpur Man vs State Of Bihar And Ors. (CW-1997-0006)

**Record:** CW-1997-0006 (compiler id CWC-0050); case BIHAR2-002
**Title:** Jagdishpur Man vs State Of Bihar And Ors.
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Choudhary S.N. Mishra
**Case number / citation:** 1998 ACJ 981, 1997 (45) BLJR 1365
**Judgment:** 1997-05-20 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-07-24 (1994)
**Place:** Bhagalpur, Bihar; city town: Jagdishpur; police station or unit: Jagdishpur Police Station / DSP Law & Order, Bhagalpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226; IPC 304
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police (Law & Order), Bhagalpur; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Jagdishpur Police Station; Driver-cum-Constable, Office of DSP Law & Order, Bhagalpur; Constable (Bodyguard), Office of DSP Law & Order, Bhagalpur (4 in record)
**Victims:** Jagdishpur man, age 27; Jagdishpur man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.6 lakh (Rs 1,55,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court allowed a criminal writ petition filed by Dulari Devi for the custodial death of her 27-year-old husband, a Jagdishpur man, who died in Central Jail Bhagalpur on July 28, 1994, following severe beatings in police custody. On July 24, 1994, a police party led by DSP tied up and assaulted a Jagdishpur man and neighbor a Jagdishpur man with lathis, assaulted them further at Jagdishpur police station, and falsely implicated them under the Arms Act. The Court held that the deceased died due to excessive torture inflicted by the four police respondents, directed the State to deposit Rs. 1,50,000 compensation and Rs. 5,00,000 costs with liberty to recover the sum from the guilty officers, and instructed the State to consider initiating criminal prosecution against them. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On the contrary, the material available on record including the admitted facts amply goes to show that the husband of the petitioner died because of excessive torture meted out to him by the respondent Nos. 7 to 10. Now the question arises as to the quantum of compensation.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/721289/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Jagdishpur Man vs State Of Bihar And Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-05-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 155,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1998 ACJ 981, 1997 (45) BLJR 1365', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/721289/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC found custodial death due to excessive torture by police, awarded Rs. 1,50,000 compensation and Rs. 5,000 costs, directing State to consider criminal prosecution.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0006)

## B.K. Pandey, Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge vs A. Natrajan, Superintendent of Police and Others (CW-1998-0008)

**Record:** CW-1998-0008 (compiler id CWC-0873); case GAP2-45-003
**Title:** B.K. Pandey, Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge vs A. Natrajan, Superintendent of Police and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: N.N. Singh; N. Pandey
**Case number / citation:** Criminal contempt proceeding (with C.W.J.C. No. 10625 of 1997) / 1998(1) PLJR 650; 1998(2) BLJR 1125
**Judgment:** 1998-02-10 (1998, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-11-18 (1997)
**Place:** Bhagalpur, Bihar; city town: Bhagalpur; police station or unit: Kotwali Police Station and other Bhagalpur units; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** Contempt of Courts Act 1971 s.15; Contempt of Courts Act 1971 s.17
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station, Bhagalpur; Sub-Inspector, Bhagalpur Police; Sub-Inspector, Bhagalpur Police; Sub-Inspector, Bhagalpur Police; Sub-Inspector, Bhagalpur Police; Sub-Inspector, Bhagalpur Police; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Bhagalpur Police; Station House Officer, Harijan Police Station, Bhagalpur; Sergeant Major, Bhagalpur Police (9 in record)
**Victims:** Bhagalpur man; Bhagalpur man; Bhagalpur man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 0.25 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. On 18 November 1997, aggrieved by the arrest of a fellow Sub-Inspector, a group of Bhagalpur policemen attacked the 1st Additional District Judge inside his courtroom and chambers. The Patna High Court held that nine identified police officials, led by ringleader \[name withheld\], were guilty of criminal contempt on the affidavits, identification evidence and the DGP's inquiry report. The court rejected their apologies as undeserved given the gravity of assaulting a judge, sentencing Choudhary to three months' simple imprisonment and the other eight to two months each. It directed the State to secure the civil courts and left departmental, commission and criminal proceedings unaffected. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Since Shri \[name withheld\] (opposite party No. 3) has acted as 'ring leader' of the contemners in the entire incident and planned the episode with a view to humiliate and assault the A.D.J. 1st (a Bhagalpur man), he deserves a severe punishment.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1205548/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/747908/bk-pandey-vth-additional-district-and-sessions-judge-and/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 46
**display title redacted:** B.K. Pandey, Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge vs A. Natrajan, Superintendent of Police and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1998-02-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1998(1) PLJR 650; 1998(2) BLJR 1125', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1205548/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/747908/bk-pandey-vth-additional-district-and-sessions-judge-and/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC convicted 9 Bhagalpur policemen of criminal contempt for the 18.11.1997 courtroom attack on the ADJ.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-1998-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1998-0008)

## Barachatti Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Bihar (CW-1998-0003)

**Record:** CW-1998-0003 (compiler id CWC-0041); case BIHAR1-004
**Title:** Barachatti Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Bihar
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: M.K. Mukherjee; G.B. Pattanaik
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 149, 218, 279, 280-282 of 1998 / AIR 1998 SC 2443, (1998) 5 SCC 699
**Judgment:** 1998-07-13 (1998, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-12-05 (1993)
**Place:** Gaya, Bihar; city town: Barachatti; police station or unit: Barachatti Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Barachatti Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Barachatti Police Station; Constable, Barachatti Police Station; Constable, Barachatti Police Station; Constable, Barachatti Police Station (5 in record)
**Victims:** Barachatti man; Barachatti man; Barachatti man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court of India upheld the convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC of five police personnel attached to Barachatti Police Station in Gaya district for the staged encounter murder of three persons on December 5, 1993. The police party had chased and fired upon a Maruti van on the Grand Trunk Road, killing businessman \[name withheld\], attendant a Barachatti man, and driver \[name withheld\], and subsequently registered a fabricated encounter FIR. While acquitting appellant \[name withheld\] on benefit of doubt, the Court affirmed the life imprisonment of constables, \[name withheld\], and \[name withheld\], and commuted the death sentences of Sub-Inspectors and \[name withheld\] to life imprisonment, holding the case did not meet the rarest-of-rare threshold. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In this view of the matter, while we uphold the conviction of accused \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] under Section 302/34 I.P.C., we set aside the sentence of death awarded against them and commute the same to imprisonment for life.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1087618/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1172785/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Barachatti Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Bihar
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1998 SC 2443, (1998) 5 SCC 699', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1998-07-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1998 SC 2443, (1998) 5 SCC 699', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1087618/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1172785/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court upheld murder convictions under IPC 302/34 of 5 Barachatti police officials for staged encounter killing, commuting death sentences to life.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1998-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1998-0003)

## Rail Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others (CW-1999-0011)

**Record:** CW-1999-0011 (compiler id CWC-0874); case GAP2-45-004
**Title:** Rail Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: S. J. Mukhopadhaya
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 5120 of 1998 / (2000) 1 PLJR 32; (1999) 09 PAT CK 0069
**Judgment:** 1999-09-30 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-07-30 (1996)
**Place:** Patna, Bihar; city town: Patna; police station or unit: Rail Police Centre, Patna (Patna Junction); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Rail Police Centre, Patna (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. On 30 July 1996 a Rail Police constable shown as sick was caught by the Dy.S.P. (Rail) checking passengers' tickets in plain clothes on Patna Junction platform, in violation of standing orders, and fled across the tracks. An ex parte inquiry held him guilty of doubtful integrity and dereliction of duty, and the S.P. (Rail) dismissed him from service. The Patna High Court held the inquiry was lawful with full opportunity which the petitioner himself spurned, declined writ discretion given the grave and repeated charges, and dismissed the petition with the dismissal operating prospectively from 23 September 1997. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the aforesaid circumstances, the charges being grave and as it appears that for similar charge, another departmental proceeding has been initiated, enquiry officer has submitted report holding the petitioner guilty for other similar charge, even if there remains any technical defect in the order of dismissal, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion under writ jurisdiction, except that the order of dismissal should be treated to be prospective i.e. w.e.f. 23.9.1997. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with the aforesaid observations.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/739586/sudhir-kumar-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Rail Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1999-09-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2000) 1 PLJR 32; (1999) 09 PAT CK 0069', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/739586/sudhir-kumar-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rail Police constable's dismissal for extortionate ticket-checking upheld; writ dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1999-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0011)

## Bihar Police Constable vs State of Bihar and Others (CW-2000-0010)

**Record:** CW-2000-0010 (compiler id CWC-0978); case GAP3-101-008
**Title:** Bihar Police Constable vs State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 8566 of 1998 / 2000(2)BLJR846
**Judgment:** 2000-01-11 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-07-04 (1992)
**Place:** Patna, Bihar; city town: Patna; police station or unit: Bihar Police, Patna Junction; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 363; IPC 366; IPC 376; IPC 376/34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bihar Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Patna woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. On 4 July 1992 at about 11.30 p.m. at Patna Junction, constable with other constables allegedly kidnapped and raped a woman, leading to G.R. No. 8231/92 under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 376/34 IPC; he was acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 95/92 on 15 January 1994 after the key witness turned hostile. Departmentally he was proceeded against on the rape charge plus dereliction of duty, unauthorised absence and insubordination, and dismissed on 5 December 1994 after a supplementary inquiry, with his appeal rejected on 28 June 1995. The Patna High Court (S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.) held the inquiry findings were not perverse, that police witnesses including identification evidence supported the charges, and that criminal acquittal on hostile and formal witnesses confers no benefit in departmental proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed on 11 January 2000. The 2000 judgment names the victim; her name is withheld here under BNS s.72 (IPC s.228A). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In absence of witnesses/evidences, if the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceeding, he cannot derive any benefit of the same in the departmental proceeding, wherein the named witnesses appeared and supported the case of prosecution.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/764184/bishram-tete-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent/); (2000) 01 PAT CK 0112; 2000(2)PLJR303
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Bihar Police Constable vs State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-01-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2000(2)BLJR846', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/764184/bishram-tete-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2000) 01 PAT CK 0112', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2000(2)PLJR303', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified; dismissal for kidnapping/rape and dereliction upheld on departmental evidence despite criminal acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2000-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0010)

## In re: Suo Motu Action by the High Court (Senari police excesses) (CW-2002-0022)

**Record:** CW-2002-0022 (compiler id CWC-0972); case GAP3-101-002
**Title:** In re: Suo Motu Action by the High Court (Senari police excesses)
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Ravi S. Dhavan; Aftab Alam
**Case number / citation:** 2003 CriLJ 1067
**Judgment:** 2002-05-10 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-07-28 (2000)
**Place:** Jehanabad, Bihar; city town: Senari village; police station or unit: Police raiding party, Jehanabad (Mianpur carnage search operation); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Police raiding party at Senari village, Jehanabad
**Victims:** Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village man; Senari village woman; Senari village resident; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village man; Senari village man; Senari village man; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman; Senari village woman (42 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.6 lakh (Rs 2,65,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court took suo-motu notice of a Dainik Jagran report that a police party searching for Mianpur-carnage accused had beaten villagers at Senari, Jehanabad, on 28 July 2000. On the District Judge's two inquiry reports, State doctors' injury reports and sealed photographs, the court held it established that police had indiscriminately beaten women with rifles, batons and lathis, rejecting the self-defence claim as a clear human-rights violation. It ordered Rs 10,000 each to the 11 victims with grievous hurt and Rs 5,000 each to the 31 with simple injuries (Rs 2,65,000 total), payable via the District Magistrate after verification by a DM-District Judge board. The court sent the entire record to the Human Rights Commission. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It was violence at the hands of the police wherein the women were beaten.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1456228/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** In re: Suo Motu Action by the High Court (Senari police excesses)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-05-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 265,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2003 CriLJ 1067', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1456228/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Suo-motu writ; graded compensation to 42 villagers for established police beating of women during search.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0022)

## Govindpur Man v. State of Bihar and Others (CW-2002-0004)

**Record:** CW-2002-0004 (compiler id CWC-0045); case EAST---NORTHEAST-002; aliases: CWC-1455
**Title:** Govindpur Man v. State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: R.S. Garg
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 192 of 2001 / (2002) 3 PLJR 637
**Judgment:** 2002-08-06 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-10-27 (2000)
**Place:** Nawada, Bihar; city town: Govindpur; police station or unit: Govindpur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 76; Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Govindpur PS, Nawada (1 in record)
**Victims:** Govindpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. Justice R.S. Garg held that Officer-in-\[name withheld\] of Govindpur police station wrongly arrested a Govindpur man on 27 October 2000 in execution of a non-bailable warrant issued in Excise Case 24/99 against Rajo Choudhary (the nickname of his brother \[name withheld\]), despite protests by family, neighbours and the chowkidar, leading to 120+ days in jail till the JMFC Nawada ordered release on 28 February 2001. The Court rejected the Section 76 IPC bona-fide-mistake defence, noting the officer persisted with a false stand instead of seeking a second opinion. It awarded Rs 50,000 compensation (Rs 40,000 by the State plus Rs 10,000 personally by the officer) payable within two months, leaving prosecution of the officer to the State authorities. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We live in the rule of law and not under the police rule where whatever is done by the police is taken to be absolutely correct.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/763132/raj-kumar-choudhary-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/125183/raj-kumar-choudhary-vs-state-bihar-ors); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=711002806000&title=raj-kumar-chaudhary-vs-state-of-bihar)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Govindpur Man v. State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-08-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2002) 3 PLJR 637', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/763132/raj-kumar-choudhary-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/125183/raj-kumar-choudhary-vs-state-bihar-ors', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=711002806000&title=raj-kumar-chaudhary-vs-state-of-bihar', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC held wrong-person arrest, 120+ days jail; Rs 50K (Rs 40K State + Rs 10K officer personally).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0004)

## In Re: Superintendent of Police and Others (Sasaram court incident dated 19.01.2002) (CW-2003-0014)

**Record:** CW-2003-0014 (compiler id CWC-0872); case GAP2-45-002
**Title:** In Re: Superintendent of Police and Others (Sasaram court incident dated 19.01.2002)
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: S. N. Jha; Narayan Roy; R. S. Garg
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 1220 of 2002 / (2003) 03 PAT CK 0015
**Judgment:** 2003-03-05 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-01-19 (2002)
**Place:** Rohtas, Bihar; city town: Sasaram; police station or unit: Bikramganj Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** Contempt of Courts Act 1971 s.2(c); Contempt of Courts Act 1971 s.12; CrPC s.349
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Rohtas Police, Bihar; Sub-Inspector, Rohtas Police, Bihar; Sub-Inspector, Bikramganj Police Station, Rohtas; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sasaram, Rohtas (4 in record)
**Victims:** Sasaram man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.167 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. Delete tore-the-uniform-of-a Sasaram man clause. Correct final sentence to: Twelve other officers were exonerated (para 34) along with the SP (paras 16-19). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I would accordingly hold that SI \[name withheld\] too guilty of contempt.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/735793/in-re-superintendent-of-police-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** In Re: Superintendent of Police and Others (Sasaram court incident dated 19.01.2002)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-03-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2003) 03 PAT CK 0015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/735793/in-re-superintendent-of-police-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC convicted 4 Rohtas police officers of criminal contempt for mob attack on Sasaram court; 3 SIs jailed 2 months, DySP fined.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2003-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0014)

## Sindhaul Man vs State of Bihar and Others (CW-2003-0020)

**Record:** CW-2003-0020 (compiler id CWC-0975); case GAP3-101-005
**Title:** Sindhaul Man vs State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Chandramauli Kumar Prasad
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 10329 of 2001 / 2004 (2) PLJR 541
**Judgment:** 2003-09-17 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-04-08 (2001)
**Place:** Begusarai, Bihar; city town: Sindhaul; police station or unit: Sindhaul Police Station, Begusarai; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-charge, Sindhaul Police Station, Begusarai; Sub-Inspector, Sindhaul Police Station, Begusarai (2 in record)
**Victims:** Sindhaul man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 75,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A tractor (BR-08-0855) with thrasher seized by the District Transport Officer was handed to Sindhaul Police Station, Begusarai, for safe custody on 29 March 2001; after the owner deposited tax and fine and obtained a release order, the tractor was found stolen from the station on 8 April 2001, with the FIR lodged only months later. The petitioner also alleged the officer-in-charge demanded illegal gratification for release, which the court did not need to decide. The Patna High Court (Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.) rejected the State's sovereign-immunity defence, held the theft occurred on account of the failure, negligence and dereliction of duty of police-station staff, and directed the State to pay Rs 75,000 plus Rs 5,500 costs within eight weeks, with liberty to recover from the erring person. The court observed that withholding two increments for such dereliction was grossly inadequate, while declining to fix individual responsibility. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is on account of the failure, negligence and dereliction of duty of the employees of the State posted in the police station that the theft had taken place.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/737850/heera-lal-yadav-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent/); (2003) 09 PAT CK 0042
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Sindhaul Man vs State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-09-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 75,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2004 (2) PLJR 541', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/737850/heera-lal-yadav-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2003) 09 PAT CK 0042', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified; police-station negligence caused loss of seized tractor, Rs 75,000 compensation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0020)

## Bihar Police Constable v. The State of Bihar and Others (CW-2003-0021)

**Record:** CW-2003-0021 (compiler id CWC-0871); case GAP2-45-001
**Title:** Bihar Police Constable v. The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Ravi S. Dhavan; Shashank Kumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 869 of 2003 / (2004) 1 PLJR 35
**Judgment:** 2003-09-23 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-02-26 (1991)
**Place:** Bhagalpur, Bihar; city town: Bhagalpur; police station or unit: Kotwali Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 147; IPC 148; IPC 149; IPC 354; IPC 448; IPC 323; Arms Act 1959 s.35
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bihar Police, Bhagalpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bhagalpur woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Patna High Court Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal of police constable, upholding his dismissal from service. The Court recorded that on 26 February 1991 he was caught on the spot with 10-12 armed associates during a forcible house invasion and assault on the survivor at Bhagalpur (Kotwali P.S. Case No. 110/91), and was thereafter departmentally tried, found guilty and dismissed by the S.P. Bhagalpur on 30 May 1995, confirmed by the DIG and the Zonal IG. It held the record showed he received the show-cause notice, replied to it, faced inquiry and preferred a departmental appeal, and that his criminal acquittal on benefit of doubt did not vitiate the departmental action. Having regard to his assault on a woman, the Court declined to interfere. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Regard being had to the circumstances that the Petitioner had assaulted a woman, this Court ought not to interfere in this appeal.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/738498/jitendra-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Bihar Police Constable v. The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-09-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2004) 1 PLJR 35', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/738498/jitendra-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC Division Bench dismissed constable's LPA, upholding dismissal for armed house invasion and assault on a woman.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2003-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0021)

## Chakardah village Police Constable (Black Commando trained) v. State of Bihar (CW-2003-0011)

**Record:** CW-2003-0011 (compiler id CWC-0352); case SUPREM-039
**Title:** Chakardah village Police Constable (Black Commando trained) v. State of Bihar
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. Rajendra Babu; P. Venkatarama Reddi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2002 / (2003) 12 SCC 516; AIR 2004 SC 210
**Judgment:** 2003-11-07 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-04-09 (1996)
**Place:** Bhojpur, Bihar; city town: Chakardah village; police station or unit: Narhi police camp; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; Arms Act 1959 s.27 (conviction set aside by SC)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (Black Commando trained), Narhi police camp, Bhojpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chakardah village man; Chakardah village man; Chakardah village man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court maintained the murder conviction of Bihar Police constable for shooting dead three colleagues at the Narhi police camp in Bhojpur on 9 April 1996, after seizing a Hawaldar's sten-gun. The Court found that the killing of Hawaldar a Chakardah village man, who had reprimanded him, was driven by anger and panic, and the killing of the other two policemen was done in a state of frenzy without premeditation. It held the indiscriminate killing of fellow policemen by a disciplined-force member aggravating but offset by mitigating circumstances, and therefore set aside the death sentence while sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000. The Court also set aside his conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act for want of proof that the sten-gun was a prohibited arm. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We, therefore, set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it has confirmed the sentence of death while maintaining the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153691/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adcae4b0149711412475)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Chakardah village Police Constable (Black Commando trained) v. State of Bihar
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2003) 12 SCC 516; AIR 2004 SC 210', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2003-11-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2003) 12 SCC 516; AIR 2004 SC 210', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153691/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adcae4b0149711412475', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; constable's s.302 conviction maintained, death commuted to life.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2003-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0011)

## Bhagalpur Man and Others vs B.K. Pandey (CW-2004-0009)

**Record:** CW-2004-0009 (compiler id CWC-1111); case GAP3-128-002
**Title:** Bhagalpur Man and Others vs B.K. Pandey
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: R. C. Lahoti; Ashok Bhan
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 316-318, 332 and 396 of 1998 / (2004) 5 SCC 26; AIR 2004 SC 2579
**Judgment:** 2004-04-13 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-11-18 (1997)
**Place:** Bhagalpur, Bihar; city town: Bhagalpur; police station or unit: Kotwali PS / Harijan PS / Police Line, Bhagalpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** Contempt of Courts Act 1971 s.2(c)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Kotwali Police Station, Bhagalpur; Sub-Inspector, Bhagalpur Police; Sub-Inspector, Bhagalpur Police; Sub-Inspector, Bhagalpur Police; Sub-Inspector, Bhagalpur Police; Sub-Inspector, Bhagalpur Police; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Bhagalpur Police; Officer-in-charge, Harijan Police Station, Bhagalpur; Sergeant Major, Police Line, Bhagalpur (9 in record)
**Victims:** Bhagalpur man; Bhagalpur resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 0.25 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of nine Bihar police personnel convicted of criminal contempt for a pre-planned attack on the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in his courtroom and chambers on 18 November 1997. The Court held the assault, triggered by contempt proceedings against an IO who had repeatedly disobeyed court process, was proved against the appellants and rejected their pleas on cognizance, proof and natural justice. It sustained the Patna High Court's sentences of three months' simple imprisonment for ring leader Inspector and two months each for the other eight. The appellants on bail were ordered to surrender forthwith, with the DGP Bihar directed to secure compliance. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The instant criminal appeals arising from a common judgment relating to the same incident, depict a rare, unfortunate and condemnable act of the police officials who contrary to the duty enjoined upon them to protect and maintain law and order, indulged in the act of attacking in a pre-planned and calculated manner a Bhagalpur man, Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, in his court room and Chambers on 18th November, 1997 at Bhagalpur in the State of Bihar.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/985284/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Bhagalpur Man and Others vs B.K. Pandey
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2004) 5 SCC 26; AIR 2004 SC 2579', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2004-04-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2004) 5 SCC 26; AIR 2004 SC 2579', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/985284/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC upheld criminal-contempt convictions of 9 policemen for pre-planned courtroom attack on sitting judge; 2-3 months SI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2004-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0009)

## Railway Police personnel vs State of Bihar and Others (CW-2004-0014)

**Record:** CW-2004-0014 (compiler id CWC-0973); case GAP3-101-003
**Title:** Railway Police personnel vs State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Narayan Roy
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 2013 of 1999 / (2004) 4 PLJR 374
**Judgment:** 2004-09-08 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-12-21 (1996)
**Place:** Patna, Bihar; city town: Bakhtiarpur; police station or unit: Railway Police, Bakhtiarpur Railway Station; force: railway
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Railway Police, Bihar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. On 21 December 1996 the Superintendent of Railway Police, Patna, with a police force caught railway policeman at Bakhtiarpur Railway Station collecting money from Patna-Mokama train passengers. After a departmental inquiry found the charges proved he was dismissed; in appeal the dismissal was modified to compulsory retirement under Rule 854(A)(6) of the Bihar Police Manual. The Patna High Court (Narayan Roy, J.) held that the accompanying police party had proved the charges, that the authorities had applied the rules of law and observed natural justice, and that substituting compulsory retirement for dismissal was already a lenient view. Finding no ground to interfere, the court dismissed the writ petition on 8 September 2004. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> From the materials on record, it appears that the police party, who were accompanying the Superintendent of Railway Police, have proved the charges against the petitioner.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/772103/babu-lal-choudhary-vs-state-of-bihar-and-others/); (2004) 09 PAT CK 0166
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Railway Police personnel vs State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2004-09-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2004) 4 PLJR 374', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/772103/babu-lal-choudhary-vs-state-of-bihar-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2004) 09 PAT CK 0166', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified; railway policeman's extortion charge proved, compulsory retirement upheld, writ dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2004-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0014)

## Bihar Police Constable vs State of Bihar and Others (CW-2004-0015)

**Record:** CW-2004-0015 (compiler id CWC-0974); case GAP3-101-004
**Title:** Bihar Police Constable vs State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Narayan Roy
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 6917 of 2000 / (2005) 1 PLJR 271
**Judgment:** 2004-11-08 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bihar; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bihar Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Bihar police constable was dismissed after a departmental proceeding found charges of repeated unauthorised absence, dating from his training period, proved; his appeal and memorial were rejected. He alleged denial of natural justice, claiming witnesses were examined behind his back. The Patna High Court (Narayan Roy, J.) held on the record that full opportunities were given, that he absented throughout after filing his written statement and produced no witness or paper showing appearance, and that the absence charges amounted to misconduct for which dismissal was not disproportionate. The court dismissed the writ petition on 8 November 2004, leaving the dismissal undisturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The charges leveled against the petitioner amounted to misconduct, and, therefore, the order of punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the guilt.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/767457/thakur-sudhir-kumar-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent/); (2004) 11 PAT CK 0055
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Bihar Police Constable vs State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2004-11-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2005) 1 PLJR 271', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/767457/thakur-sudhir-kumar-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2004) 11 PAT CK 0055', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified; dismissal for repeated unauthorised absence upheld — pure service matter, no civilian victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2004-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0015)

## Danapur Man v. State of Bihar & Ors. (CW-2006-0004)

**Record:** CW-2006-0004 (compiler id CWC-0460); case SWCUSTOD-034
**Title:** Danapur Man v. State of Bihar & Ors.
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Barin Ghosh
**Case number / citation:** CWJC No. 2148 of 2001 / (2006) 3 PLJR 336
**Judgment:** 2006-03-31 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-06-01 (1998)
**Place:** Patna, Bihar; city town: Danapur; police station or unit: Danapur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating Officer, Bihar Police, Danapur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Danapur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court held the State liable for the homicidal custodial death of a Danapur man, whose injured dead body came out of police custody in June 1998 after he was kept overnight at Danapur and then remanded to jail. The Court found the post-mortem showed injuries that would cause homicidal death, and that the Investigating Officer deliberately delayed forwarding viscera to the FSL by 18 months so the cause of death could never be known, while superiors stood by silently. It assessed Rs 5 lakh nominal damages payable within three months. The State was directed to recover the sum from the person or persons at fault. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The post mortem report depicts marks of injuries, which if inflicted upon a living soul, may cause his death. Such death will be homicidal in nature.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/764692/rama-awtar-swarnkar-ram-awtar-pd-swarankar-appellant-hash-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-responde/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 1
**display title redacted:** Danapur Man v. State of Bihar & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-03-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2006) 3 PLJR 336', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/764692/rama-awtar-swarnkar-ram-awtar-pd-swarankar-appellant-hash-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-responde/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC awarded Rs 5L nominal damages with recovery from officers at fault.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0004)

## Aurangabad Police Constable vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. (CW-2007-0002)

**Record:** CW-2007-0002 (compiler id CWC-0043); case BIHAR1-006
**Title:** Aurangabad Police Constable vs The State Of Bihar And Ors.
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: S.K. Katriar
**Case number / citation:** 2007 (2) BLJR 1508
**Judgment:** 2007-04-04 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-02-04 (1997)
**Place:** Aurangabad, Bihar; city town: Aurangabad; police station or unit: Aurangabad Police Lines, Bihar Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Bihar Police Manual Rule 824; Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Aurangabad Police Lines (1 in record)
**Victims:** Aurangabad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Patna High Court upheld the departmental dismissal of Bihar Police constable, confirming orders passed by the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad and the DIG Magadh Range. The departmental inquiry established all five charges against him, including being drunk on duty on February 4, 1997, assaulting a homeguard by throwing a dog at him and biting his nose, appearing intoxicated before the Sergeant Major, and continuous unauthorized absence for 144 days. Rejecting the petitioner's plea for leniency, the Court held that in view of grave indiscipline and habitual misconduct, dismissal from service under Rule 824 of the Bihar Police Manual was the only fit punishment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the order of dismissal from service is the only punishment fit to be inflicted on the petitioner. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/907962/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20-21
**display title redacted:** Aurangabad Police Constable vs The State Of Bihar And Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-04-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2007 (2) BLJR 1508', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/907962/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC upheld dismissal of constable for drunken violence, assault on homeguard, and habitual unauthorized absence.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0002)

## Bihar Police Constable vs Director General-cum-Inspector General and Others (CW-2008-0017)

**Record:** CW-2008-0017 (compiler id CWC-0980); case GAP3-102-002
**Title:** Bihar Police Constable vs Director General-cum-Inspector General and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Navin Sinha
**Case number / citation:** 2008 Lab IC 3169
**Judgment:** 2008-02-14 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-01-09 (1983)
**Place:** Bihar; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Bihar Police Manual Rule 843; Bihar Police Manual Rule 824
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bihar Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. Police constable proceeded on 40 days' earned leave expiring 8 January 1983, had his extension request rejected, and reported for duty only on 9 April 1983, after which a departmental proceeding for 90 days' unauthorised absence ended in dismissal on 3 July 1985; his appeal and memorial were rejected. He pleaded illness supported by a medical certificate and argued dismissal was disproportionate. The Patna High Court (Navin Sinha, J.) held he led no evidence for the illness plea, the enquiry finding was not perverse, the 90-day overstay counted as unauthorised absence for a member of a uniformed disciplined force, and the non-speaking appellate order caused no prejudice since the memorial order was reasoned. The writ application was dismissed on 14 February 2008, leaving the dismissal undisturbed; the incident date above is the start of the 90-day absence spell (9 January - 9 April 1983), and the writ number is not stated in the retrieved text.

> He has overstayed on leave for 90 days which has been reckoned as unauthorized absence for a member of uniformed disciplined force.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1190326/); 2008 LAB. I. C. 3169; 2008 (3) AIR JHAR R 703; (2009) 2 SERVLR 540
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Bihar Police Constable vs Director General-cum-Inspector General and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['subcategory', 'sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-02-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2008 Lab IC 3169', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1190326/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2008 LAB. I. C. 3169', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2008 (3) AIR JHAR R 703', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2009) 2 SERVLR 540', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified; dismissal for 90 days' unauthorised absence upheld — pure service matter, no civilian victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0017)

## Rail Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others (CW-2008-0004)

**Record:** CW-2008-0004 (compiler id CWC-0048); case BIHAR1-012
**Title:** Rail Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: S. K. Katriar; Kishore K. Mandal
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal arising out of CWJC No. 5120 of 1998 / 2008 LAB IC 3035; (2008) 7 Serv LR 278
**Judgment:** 2008-02-28 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-07-30 (1996)
**Place:** Patna, Bihar; city town: Patna; police station or unit: Rail Police Centre, Patna; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Bihar Police Manual Rule 826
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Rail Police Centre, Patna (Bihar Police) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Patna resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court upheld the dismissal of Bihar Police constable of the Rail Police Centre, Patna, caught by the DSP (Rail) on 30 July 1996 checking tickets from passengers on platform No. 1 at Patna Junction in plain clothes and extorting money, then fleeing across the tracks. Found guilty after enquiry, he was dismissed in 1997, affirmed in appeal and memorial, and his writ was dismissed by a Single Judge in 1999. The Division Bench rejected pleas of denial of cross-examination, parity with a co-delinquent, and disproportionality, noting a second identical proceeding against him, and dismissed the LPA. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> He found the petitioner checking the railway ticket of a passenger on platform no. 1. On being questioned, the petitioner had kept quiet.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1922123/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/739586/sudhir-kumar-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Rail Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-02-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2008 LAB IC 3035; (2008) 7 Serv LR 278', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1922123/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/739586/sudhir-kumar-singh-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** LPA dismissed; dismissal for extorting railway passengers in plain clothes upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0004)

## Jadia Police Constable vs State Of Bihar And Ors. (CW-2008-0005)

**Record:** CW-2008-0005 (compiler id CWC-0052); case BIHAR2-004
**Title:** Jadia Police Constable vs State Of Bihar And Ors.
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: S.N. Hussain
**Case number / citation:** CWJC No. 11019 of 1993 / (2008) 3 PLJR 285
**Judgment:** 2008-02-29 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1986-07-31 (1986)
**Place:** Supaul, Bihar (district at time: Saharsa); city town: Jadia; police station or unit: Jadia Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jadia Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jadia man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by dismissed constable, upholding the order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa with effect from November 1, 1987. A departmental inquiry established that on the night of July 31, 1986, the petitioner brought alcohol into Jadia Police Station, drank there, assaulted civilian a Jadia man inside the station, and hurled abusive language at the Inspector and Sub-Inspector when restrained. Holding that the inquiry was conducted properly with full opportunity given to the delinquent officer and that severe indiscipline in a uniformed police force cannot be tolerated, the Court found the dismissal penalty fully commensurate with the misconduct. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The charges levelled against the petitioner and the materials on record, which were fully discussed in the impugned orders, clearly show that the petitioner had committed acts of gross misconduct, negligence and indiscipline not befitting a Police personnel and hence the punishment given to him was quite commensurate with the acts committed by the petitioner. For the reason aforementioned, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders of the authorities concerned and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/737812/paras-nath-singh-appellant-hash-state-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Jadia Police Constable vs State Of Bihar And Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-02-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2008) 3 PLJR 285', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/737812/paras-nath-singh-appellant-hash-state-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC upheld dismissal of constable for drinking in police station, assaulting a civilian, and abusing superior officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0005)

## Bihar Military Police Constable (under training) v. State of Bihar & Ors. (CW-2011-0027)

**Record:** CW-2011-0027 (compiler id CWC-1116); case GAP3-130-001
**Title:** Bihar Military Police Constable (under training) v. State of Bihar & Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Anil R. Dave; Mukundakam Sharma
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 3131 of 2011 / (2011) 13 SCC 118; AIR 2011 SC 1790
**Judgment:** 2011-04-08 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1977-01-01 (1977)
**Place:** Palamu, Bihar (district at time: Palamu (undivided Bihar; now in Jharkhand)); police station or unit: BMP-1, Ranchi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Bihar Pension Rules 1950 Rule 46; Bihar Pension Rules 1950 Rule 107
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (under training), Bihar Military Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The appellant, appointed as a constable, absconded from the Commandant Training Centre, BMP-1, Ranchi while under suspension and remained unauthorisedly absent for 105 days; after a departmental inquiry the Superintendent of Police, Palamu ended his service by order dated 14 September 1977, and his departmental appeal to the DIG was dismissed. Years later he claimed pension, contending the order said discharge rather than dismissal. The Supreme Court held the order was in substance a dismissal for misconduct, that discharge is not a punishment known to the Bihar Police Manual, and that as a dismissed employee he was entitled to no pension under Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs; this is an internal service-discipline matter with no citizen victim.

> In our opinion, the authorities and the High Court were right in coming to the conclusion that as the appellant was removed from service by way of dismissal on account of his misconduct, the appellant was not entitled to get any pension as per Rule 46 of the Rules.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/638434/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Bihar Military Police Constable (under training) v. State of Bihar & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-04-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2011) 13 SCC 118; AIR 2011 SC 1790', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/638434/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC dismissed appeal; dismissal of constable for 105 days absence upheld, pension denied.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0027)

## The Matter Of State (Through SPE/CBI/Patna) vs \[name withheld\] And Ors (CW-2011-0006)

**Record:** CW-2011-0006 (compiler id CWC-0051); case BIHAR2-003
**Title:** The Matter Of State (Through SPE/CBI/Patna) vs \[name withheld\] And Ors
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Dharnidhar Jha
**Case number / citation:** Govt. Appeal (SJ) No. 65 of 1990
**Judgment:** 2011-05-02 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-07-25 (1980)
**Place:** Bhagalpur, Bihar; city town: Sabour; police station or unit: Sabour Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 326; IPC 120B; IPC 220
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Sabour Police Station; Police Personnel, Sabour Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Sabour man; Sabour man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

In the infamous Bhagalpur blindings case, the Patna High Court allowed the CBI's appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, and restored the conviction and sentence against police Officer-in-\[name withheld\] and police personnel \[name withheld\]. The accused policemen had rounded up victims a Sabour man and a Sabour man from villages under Sabour Police Station on July 25, 1980, confined them in a school and the police station, and pierced their eyes with a sharp takua before pouring corrosive acid. Holding the lower appellate court's acquittal perverse and unsupported by evidence, the High Court convicted both policemen under Sections 326, 120B, and 220 IPC and directed them to surrender to serve their sentences of rigorous imprisonment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The acquittal of respondent \[name withheld\] and Sri \[name withheld\] is hereby set aside. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed upon \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] by the trial Magistrate is restored.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1688817/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/767158/pdf/?view=inline); [bhaskarenglish.in](https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/amp/bihar-election/news/bhagalpur-blindings-case-operation-gangajal-congress-bjp-136220354.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 42
**display title redacted:** The Matter Of State (Through SPE/CBI/Patna) vs \[name withheld\] And Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-05-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Govt. Appeal (SJ) No. 65 of 1990', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1688817/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/767158/pdf/?view=inline', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/amp/bihar-election/news/bhagalpur-blindings-case-operation-gangajal-congress-bjp-136220354.html', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC set aside acquittal and convicted police officers and \[name withheld\] for Bhagalpur blinding of undertrials.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2011-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0006)

## Gaya Man vs The State Of Bihar & Ors (CW-2011-0021)

**Record:** CW-2011-0021 (compiler id CWC-0039); case BIHAR1-002
**Title:** Gaya Man vs The State Of Bihar & Ors
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ No. 239 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2011-11-23 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-07-19 (2005)
**Place:** Gaya, Bihar; city town: Gaya; police station or unit: Magadh Medical Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Magadh Medical Police Station; Investigating Officer, Magadh Medical Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Gaya man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court held that the arrest of petitioner \[name withheld\] on July 19, 2005 by Magadh Medical Police in Gaya constituted illegal detention because the High Court had specifically ordered on June 24, 2005 that no coercive steps be taken against him. The interim stay order had already been communicated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya to the Superintendent of Police and forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge prior to the arrest. Rejecting the State's defence that the arrest was made in good faith in a cognizable dowry case, the Court found an egregious violation of Article 21 and awarded Rs. 1,00,000 compensation to the petitioner payable by the State, with liberty to realize the amount from the negligent employee. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As such, the detention of petitioner during the course of having the shield prescribed by the judicial order passed by this Court certainly covers the terms 'illegal detention' and because of the fact that it has been on the part of the State machinery, hence State is liable to compensate. Accordingly, Rs. 1 Lac is granted by way of compensation to be paid to the petitioner by the State within three months from the date of order.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1156405/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Gaya Man vs The State Of Bihar & Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-11-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ No. 239 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1156405/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC held arrest in violation of interim protection order constituted illegal detention and awarded Rs. 1,00,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0021)

## Motihari District Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others (CW-2012-0022)

**Record:** CW-2012-0022 (compiler id CWC-0988); case GAP3-104-003
**Title:** Motihari District Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: V.N. Sinha
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 7410 of 2007 / (2012) 2 PLJR 843
**Judgment:** 2012-01-06 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-02-13 (2002)
**Place:** East Champaran, Bihar; city town: Raxaul; police station or unit: Motihari District Police, East Champaran; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 364A; IPC 120B; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Motihari District Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Raxaul resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. Constable of the Motihari District Police was departmentally proceeded for complicity in Raxaul P.S. Case No. 20 of 2002, the abduction of a Raxaul resident for ransom, in which his home telephone was used for ransom demands and the victim was confined at his house. The Superintendent of Police initially withheld three increments, but the Director General-cum-Inspector General enhanced the penalty to dismissal under Rule 853A of the Bihar Police Manual. The Patna High Court found that the constable had accepted the guilt finding, declined opportunities to cross-examine witnesses, and was named by a co-accused as an active participant. The Court held the enhancement was made within reasonable time and that he did not deserve retention in the police force, and dismissed the writ petition. His Letters Patent Appeal and review were also dismissed, making the dismissal final.

> Petitioner having not questioned his complicity in the crime of abduction in the initial punishment order, in my opinion, he is not well advised to question his complicity in the same crime when punishment has been enhanced. In any view of the matter, petitioner having been named by one of the co-accused as active participant in the occurrence and named as suspect in the charge-sheet (sic) not deserve to be retained in the police force.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/732778/arbind-kumar-singh-appellant-hash-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/775257/arbind-kumar-singh-appellant-hash-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent-1/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Motihari District Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-01-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2012) 2 PLJR 843', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/732778/arbind-kumar-singh-appellant-hash-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/775257/arbind-kumar-singh-appellant-hash-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-respondent-1/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC dismissed writ; DGP's enhanced dismissal of kidnapping-complicit constable upheld (LPA/review also dismissed).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0022)

## Narhan Bazar, Bibhutipur Police Constable vs The State Of Bihar & Ors (CW-2012-0002)

**Record:** CW-2012-0002 (compiler id CWC-0053); case BIHAR2-005
**Title:** Narhan Bazar, Bibhutipur Police Constable vs The State Of Bihar & Ors
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Shivaji Pandey
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9314 of 1998
**Judgment:** 2012-02-06 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-03-06 (1989)
**Place:** Samastipur, Bihar; city town: Narhan Bazar, Bibhutipur; police station or unit: Narhan Bazar police post / Bibhutipur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 307; IPC 34; Arms Act 1959 s.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Narhan Bazar, Samastipur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Narhan Bazar, Bibhutipur woman; Narhan Bazar, Bibhutipur man; Narhan Bazar, Bibhutipur resident; Narhan Bazar, Bibhutipur resident; Narhan Bazar, Bibhutipur resident; Narhan Bazar, Bibhutipur resident; Narhan Bazar, Bibhutipur resident (7 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Patna High Court upheld the dismissal of Bihar Police constable, posted at Narhan Bazar in Samastipur for law-and-order duty, who quarrelled with vegetable vendor a Narhan Bazar, Bibhutipur woman over 25 paise on March 6, 1989, assaulted her and her husband, then returned with his service rifle and an associate and fired twice, killing one person and injuring four (Bibhutipur PS Case No. 34 of 1989). A departmental enquiry proved the charges, leading to dismissal by the SP Samastipur on September 28, 1995, affirmed on appeal and memorial; the constable was also criminally convicted and sentenced to 5 years RI under Sections 307/34 IPC and 2 years RI under the Arms Act, upheld on criminal appeal. Holding the misconduct of the highest degree and a barbaric crime, the Court found dismissal not disproportionate and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> for a petty matter, petitioner used his service rifle and killed one person and injured others without any provocation and, as such, he does not deserve any sympathy from this Court. This act is not only highest degree of misconduct but at same time a barbaric and heinous crime against the society.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102197345/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Narhan Bazar, Bibhutipur Police Constable vs The State Of Bihar & Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-02-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9314 of 1998', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102197345/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC upheld dismissal of constable for firing service rifle in market over petty dispute, killing one and injuring four.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0002)

## Bausi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Bihar (CW-2014-0021)

**Record:** CW-2014-0021 (compiler id CWC-0877); case GAP2-47-001
**Title:** Bausi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Bihar
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Dharnidhar Jha
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 347 of 1993
**Judgment:** 2014-03-07 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1978-07-07 (1978)
**Place:** Banka, Bihar (district at time: Bhagalpur); city town: Bausi; police station or unit: Bausi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Bausi Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bausi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. ASI, investigating a theft case at Bausi police station, demanded Rs. 200 from the accused to file a final report in his favour, and was caught in a vigilance trap with the marked notes. The Special Judge (Vigilance) convicted him under section 161 IPC and section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, sentencing him to 1.5 years' rigorous imprisonment plus Rs. 1,000 fine on each count. The Patna High Court held the demand and acceptance proved through trap witnesses, rejected attacks on the non-examination of the deceased complainant, and dismissed the appeal without reducing the sentence.

> The witnesses who have come forward have stated to the fact that the demand of bribe were made and the same was paid and accepted. The offence under Section 5 (1) (d), that is, of criminal misconduct on account of abusing the official position which was held by the appellant in obtaining the pecuniary advantage in the sum of Rs.200/- appears clearly established from the facts and in that view of the matter I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of guilty.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112755403/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Bausi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Bihar
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Patna High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Patna High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 347 of 1993', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2014-03-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 347 of 1993', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112755403/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** ASI's Rs.200 bribe-trap conviction (1.5 years RI + fine) sustained on appeal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0021)

## Madhubani District Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others (CW-2015-0022)

**Record:** CW-2015-0022 (compiler id CWC-1012); case GAP3-105-013
**Title:** Madhubani District Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2408 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2015-02-16 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1981-09-20 (1981)
**Place:** Madhubani, Bihar; police station or unit: Madhubani District Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Madhubani District Police, Bihar Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. \[name withheld\], appointed as a constable in Purnea in September 1981, challenged his May 2012 dismissal by the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani, for securing the job with a forged school certificate. The court found he had produced an Arwal school certificate showing a 1956 birth date while records of Maheshwari Academy, Katihar showed a 1949 birth date and an intermediate pass in 1967, making him over-age at appointment. The court held a regular departmental proceeding had proved the forgery, the appellate authority had rightly refused interference, and no mercy was due to one who cheated the State to join the police. The writ petition was dismissed and the dismissal stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> He had procured the employment after committing forgery and had cheated the State for getting the employment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76468627/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Madhubani District Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-02-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2408 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76468627/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC dismissed the writ; dismissal of constable for securing appointment by forged certificate upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0022)

## Railway Protection Force Constable vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2015-0023)

**Record:** CW-2015-0023 (compiler id CWC-1010); case GAP3-105-011
**Title:** Railway Protection Force Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Shivaji Pandey
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 7390 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2015-02-18 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-01-01 (1993)
**Place:** Katihar, Bihar; city town: Katihar; police station or unit: RPF Post Kumedpur, Katihar Division, N.F. Railway; force: railway
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 363; IPC 366A; IPC 376; IPC 422/34; Arms Act s.25A; Arms Act s.26
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Railway Protection Force, Katihar Division (1 in record)
**Victims:** Katihar woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Patna High Court sustained the dismissal of RPF Constable, imposed on account of his conviction for kidnapping and raping a minor girl and Arms Act offences for which he served ten years imprisonment. The court held that though the order dispensing with an enquiry lacked foundation, a remand would be a useless formality given the admitted heinous conviction involving moral turpitude. It declared the dismissal illegal with retrospective effect but kept it in operation prospectively from 15 September 2011, with back salary for 1993-2011. The dismissal therefore stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the order of dismissal with retrospective effect is illegal, but will remain in operation prospectively.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90075879/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Railway Protection Force Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-02-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'C.W.J.C. No. 7390 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90075879/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal of rape-convict RPF constable sustained prospectively; writ partly allowed only on retrospectivity.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0023)

## Sono Man vs The State Of Bihar & Ors (CW-2015-0004)

**Record:** CW-2015-0004 (compiler id CWC-0049); case BIHAR2-001
**Title:** Sono Man vs The State Of Bihar & Ors
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13577 of 2010 / AIR 2015 PATNA 141, (2015) 4 PAT LJR 277
**Judgment:** 2015-03-20 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2010-04-11 (2010)
**Place:** Jamui, Bihar; city town: Sono; police station or unit: Sono Police Station / Jamui District Jail; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Sono Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Sono man, age 28 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20 lakh (Rs 20,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court allowed a writ petition filed by Sunaina Devi seeking compensation for the custodial death of her husband, a Sono man, who died on April 11, 2010 after being arrested by Sono police and lodged in Jamui District Jail. The inquiry records and medical evidence revealed that the deceased was brought to jail with severe external injury marks, and the post-mortem doctor confirmed excessive hemorrhage from assault leading to cardiorespiratory failure. Holding that the fundamental right to life under Article 21 was violated by State officials while the deceased was in custody, the Court directed the State of Bihar to pay Rs. 20,00,000 compensation to the petitioner and the victim's family, with liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against responsible officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case, it is prima facie established that fundamental right of the deceased was violated by the officials of State Government while he was lodged in jail custody and, therefore, in my view, the State cannot escape from the liabilities of making payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105046068/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Sono Man vs The State Of Bihar & Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-03-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 2015 PATNA 141, (2015) 4 PAT LJR 277', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105046068/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC found custodial death due to assault in custody and awarded Rs. 20,00,000 compensation to deceased widow and family.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2015-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0004)

## Motihari District Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others (CW-2015-0036)

**Record:** CW-2015-0036 (compiler id CWC-1013); case GAP3-105-014
**Title:** Motihari District Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: I. A. Ansari; Ashwani Kumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** Civil Review No. 124 of 2014 in L.P.A. No. 227 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2015-11-27 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-02-13 (2002)
**Place:** East Champaran, Bihar; city town: Raxaul; police station or unit: Motihari District Police (Raxaul P.S. Case No. 20 of 2002); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 364A; IPC 34; IPC 120B; CPC Order XLVII Rule 1
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Motihari District Police, Bihar Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Raxaul resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. \[name withheld\], a 1999-recruited Bihar Police constable posted at Motihari, sought review of the dismissal of his appeal against the termination of his service for complicity in the February 2002 kidnapping of a Raxaul resident for ransom. The court recorded that a departmental enquiry had found his home telephone was used in the crime, the victim was kept at his house, and he associated with a known criminal, leading the DGP to enhance an initial minor penalty to dismissal in January 2006. The court held the review was merely an attempt at a re-hearing on merits beyond Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and disclosed no error apparent. The review application was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the dismissal stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2275886/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Motihari District Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-11-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Review No. 124 of 2014 in L.P.A. No. 227 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2275886/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC dismissed the review; dismissal of constable for complicity in kidnapping for ransom stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0036)

## Railway Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others (CW-2016-0018)

**Record:** CW-2016-0018 (compiler id CWC-1019); case GAP3-105-020
**Title:** Railway Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Hemant Gupta; Navaniti Prasad Singh
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal No. 1620 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2016-03-01 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-01-24 (2000)
**Place:** Bhagalpur, Bihar; city town: Kharik; police station or unit: Rail Police, Katihar (Kharik Railway Station post); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 395; IPC 397; IPC 120B; CrPC s.164
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Railway Police, Katihar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

\[name withheld\], a Katihar Rail Police constable posted at Kharik station, was dismissed in May 2001 for complicity in the January 2000 armed attack on his own police post in which personnel were injured and arms looted. The court held the co-accused Section 164 statement was relevant departmental evidence, the Evidence Act does not strictly govern departmental enquiries, and no prejudice from procedural lapses had been proved. The court found no error in the Single Bench order upholding the punishment. The appeal was dismissed and the dismissal stands.

> In view of the above, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court which may warrant interference in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64059240/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Railway Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-03-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Letters Patent Appeal No. 1620 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64059240/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC Division Bench dismissed the LPA; dismissal of Rail Police constable for complicity in armed dacoity stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0018)

## The State of Bihar and Others vs Government Railway Police Constable (CW-2016-0021)

**Record:** CW-2016-0021 (compiler id CWC-1015); case GAP3-105-016
**Title:** The State of Bihar and Others vs Government Railway Police Constable
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Navaniti Prasad Singh; Nilu Agrawal
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal No. 1790 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2016-03-29 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Saran, Bihar; city town: Chapra; police station or unit: Government Railway Police, Railway P.S. Chapra; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Government Railway Police, Chapra (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

\[name withheld\], a Government Railway Police constable attached to Railway Police Station Chapra, was dismissed in November 2005 after an enquiry found he had boarded a running train in uniform and extorted money from passengers. A Single Bench upheld the guilt finding but set aside the dismissal on hardship grounds, and the State appealed. The Division Bench held that dismissal for such grave misconduct by one meant to protect citizens could not be called disproportionate. The appeal was allowed, the Single Bench relief set aside, and the dismissal restored.

> When we look to the facts of the present case, the delinquency is grave. An Officer of Uniformed Service(Constable) gets into a running Train and starts extorting money from the passengers and is apprehended there itself.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/136354547/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** The State of Bihar and Others vs Government Railway Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-03-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Letters Patent Appeal No. 1790 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/136354547/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC Division Bench allowed the State appeal and restored the GRP constable dismissal for extorting passengers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0021)

## Bihar Military Police Constable vs State of Bihar (CW-2016-0022)

**Record:** CW-2016-0022 (compiler id CWC-1005); case GAP3-105-006
**Title:** Bihar Military Police Constable vs State of Bihar
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Hemant Gupta; Ahsanuddin Amanullah
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 99 of 2014 / (2016) 2 BBCJ 465; (2016) 3 PLJR 108
**Judgment:** 2016-04-06 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Munger, Bihar; city town: Jamalpur; police station or unit: Bihar Military Police-X, Jamalpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bihar Military Police-X, Jamalpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Patna High Court Division Bench dismissed the letters patent appeal of BMP Constable against his dismissal dated 22 November 2006 for 340 days of unauthorised absence. The court held that adequate opportunity had been afforded at every stage, with notices served through his father, post and special messenger, and that he had evaded participation and refused cross-examination. It found no procedural irregularity in the enquiry and declined to interfere with the penalty. The dismissal, already affirmed in departmental appeal and writ, therefore stands.

> There is no procedural irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings. Since there is no procedural irregularity or illegality, we do not find any error in the order of the disciplinary authority which may warrant any interference in the present appeal.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/777490/diwan-firoj-khan-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-respondent/); (2016) 2 BBCJ 465; (2016) 3 PLJR 108
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Bihar Military Police Constable vs State of Bihar
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-04-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2016) 2 BBCJ 465; (2016) 3 PLJR 108', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/777490/diwan-firoj-khan-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2016) 2 BBCJ 465', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2016) 3 PLJR 108', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** LPA against dismissal for 340 days unauthorised absence dismissed; dismissal stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0022)

## Union of India vs Patna Police Constable (CW-2016-0025)

**Record:** CW-2016-0025 (compiler id CWC-1007); case GAP3-105-008
**Title:** Union of India vs Patna Police Constable
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: D. N. Patel; Ananda Sen
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 267 of 2013 / (2016) 4 AIR Jhar R 696; (2017) 1 JLJR 337
**Judgment:** 2016-04-27 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-10-07 (1999)
**Place:** Patna, Bihar; city town: Patna; police station or unit: CISF Company 613 (Shatabdi Bhawan Strong Room election duty, Patna); force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** CISF Act 1968 s.8
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Central Industrial Security Force (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Division Bench allowed the Union of India appeal and restored the dismissal of CISF Constable, setting aside the Single Bench order of 8 March 2013. The court held that his admitted abandonment of the Shatabdi Bhawan strong-room post during the 1999 Lok Sabha elections, leaving a 7.62mm rifle and 50 rounds unguarded, amounted to dereliction, negligence, indiscipline and wilful disobedience. It disbelieved the illness defence and held dismissal was not disproportionate for a member of a disciplined force. The dismissal of 25 September 2000, already affirmed in appeal and revision, therefore stands.

> As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 864 of 2002 dated 8th March, 2013 is, hereby, quashed and set aside and we, hereby, uphold the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 25th September, 2000 (Annexure-3) as well as the order passed by the appellate authority dated 08th January, 2001 (Annexure-4) and the order passed by the revisional authority dated 25th July, 2001(Annexure- 5).

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/484032/union-of-india-appellant-hash-harendra-singh-respondent/); (2016) 4 AIR Jhar R 696; (2017) 1 JLJR 337
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Union of India vs Patna Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-04-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2016) 4 AIR Jhar R 696; (2017) 1 JLJR 337', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/484032/union-of-india-appellant-hash-harendra-singh-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2016) 4 AIR Jhar R 696', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2017) 1 JLJR 337', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Union appeal allowed; Single Bench order set aside and CISF dismissal restored.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0025)

## The Union of India and Others vs BSF Constable (CW-2016-0031)

**Record:** CW-2016-0031 (compiler id CWC-1016); case GAP3-105-017
**Title:** The Union of India and Others vs BSF Constable
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Hemant Gupta; Ahsanuddin Amanullah
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal No. 451 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2016-08-11 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-03-02 (2007)
**Place:** Madhubani, Bihar; city town: Phulparas; police station or unit: 113 Battalion, BSF; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, 113 Battalion, BSF (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

\[name withheld\], a BSF constable of 113 Battalion enrolled in 1990, was dismissed in May 2007 after pleading guilty before the Security Force Court to a 33-day overstay of leave. The court recorded that he was a habitual offender with 11 summary trials and 21 overstays in about 17 years including a 2006 conviction, and that due process with opportunities to defend had been afforded. The court held the Single Bench had erred in setting aside the dismissal. The Union appeal was allowed, the Single Bench order set aside, and the dismissal restored.

> Therefore, we find that the order of the learned Single Bench cannot be sustained. The same is, thus, set aside. Consequently, the writ application is dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30374558/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** The Union of India and Others vs BSF Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-08-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Letters Patent Appeal No. 451 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30374558/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC Division Bench allowed the Union appeal and restored the BSF constable dismissal for habitual overstay.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0031)

## The State of Bihar and Others vs Patna Police Constable and others (CW-2016-0008)

**Record:** CW-2016-0008 (compiler id CWC-0046); case BIHAR1-009
**Title:** The State of Bihar and Others vs Patna Police Constable and others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Hemant Gupta; Ahsanuddin Amanullah
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal No. 516 of 2014 (arising out of CWJC No. 471 of 2004)
**Judgment:** 2016-11-16 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-08-08 (1988)
**Place:** Patna, Bihar; city town: Patna; police station or unit: Dog Squad, CID, Bihar, Patna; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Dog Squad, Crime Investigation Department (CID), Bihar, Patna (1 in record)
**Victims:** Patna resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court restored the dismissal of CID Dog Squad constable \[name withheld\], caught red-handed with Rs 40,000 blackmail money by a raiding party on 8 August 1988. Though convicted in the criminal case in 1994 and acquitted on appeal in 1996, he was dismissed after a departmental enquiry, a penalty affirmed in appeal and memorial but set aside by a Single Judge in 2013. The Division Bench held the Single Judge had impermissibly re-appreciated evidence, found no procedural infirmity on perusing the original file, and held criminal acquittal does not conclude departmental proceedings. The LPA was allowed and the writ dismissed. Later proceedings: on 23 April 2025, the Supreme Court of India set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The respondent was caught with Rs. 40,000/- by the raiding party and taken into custody

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96641301/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** The State of Bihar and Others vs Patna Police Constable and others
**final outcome url:** https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120966011/
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-11-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Letters Patent Appeal No. 516 of 2014 (arising out of CWJC No. 471 of 2004)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-04-23', 'action_type': 'Order set aside', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'Later proceedings: on 23 April 2025, the Supreme Court of India set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand.', 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Conviction not standing', 'source': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120966011/', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2025-04-23', 'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120966011/', 'outcome': 'conviction_set_aside'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96641301/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** overturned
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** LPA allowed; dismissal for Rs 40,000 blackmail restored, criminal acquittal held no bar.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0008)

## Alipur Man vs The State of Bihar (CW-2017-0001)

**Record:** CW-2017-0001 (compiler id CWC-0038); case BIHAR1-001
**Title:** Alipur Man vs The State of Bihar
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33693 of 2016
**Judgment:** 2017-01-11 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2016-06-08 (2016)
**Place:** Gaya, Bihar; city town: Alipur; police station or unit: Alipur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 22(2); CrPC s.57
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Alipur Police Station; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Alipur Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Alipur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court held that police officers at Alipur Police Station, Gaya illegally detained accused \[name withheld\] in police lockup from June 8 to June 13, 2016 without producing him before a magistrate within 24 hours. A departmental inquiry ordered by the High Court and completed by the SSP Gaya confirmed the violation and recommended suspension and departmental proceedings against SHO and IO ASI. The Court ruled that the police violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC, awarding Rs. 50,000 compensation against the State with liberty to recover the sum from the responsible officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Furthermore, though petitioner being an accused was liable to be confined, but such confinement at the end of police officials was not permissible beyond period of 24 hours (excluding time consumed in production before nearest Court), and so, they have had illegally encroached upon fundamental right of the petitioner whereupon, petitioner is entitled to get compensation and is accordingly awarded.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134093468/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Alipur Man vs The State of Bihar
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-01-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33693 of 2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134093468/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC awarded Rs. 50,000 compensation for illegal police lockup detention beyond 24 hours in violation of Art. 22.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2017-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0001)

## Bihar Military Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others (CW-2017-0015)

**Record:** CW-2017-0015 (compiler id CWC-1024); case GAP3-105-025
**Title:** Bihar Military Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Prabhat Kumar Jha
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15626 of 2008
**Judgment:** 2017-01-28 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-05-07 (2000)
**Place:** Gaya, Bihar; city town: Bodh Gaya; police station or unit: Bihar Military Police-18, Bodh Gaya; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bihar Military Police-18, Bodh Gaya (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. \[name withheld\], a constable in Bihar Military Police-18 at Bodh Gaya, took four days leave from 07.05.2000, ignored recall notices dated 24.06.2000 and 12.09.2000, and rejoined only on 16.04.2001 with a sciatica certificate. The Commandant dismissed him on 04.01.2002 after enquiry; his appeal (DIG, 04.03.2003) and memorial (DG, 05.08.2004) were rejected. After his death, his widow \[name withheld\] challenged the dismissal under Article 226. The Court examined the service record, finding fifteen willful absences totalling 931 days overstay and six desertions in 14 years, and held the habitual-absence punishment required no interference. The writ petition was dismissed and the dismissal from service stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, I find that the order of punishment inflicted on the husband of the petitioner does not require any interference and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76016717/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Bihar Military Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-01-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15626 of 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76016717/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary source read; HC dismissed widow's writ, sustaining BMP constable's dismissal for habitual absence.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0015)

## CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2017-0023)

**Record:** CW-2017-0023 (compiler id CWC-1026); case GAP3-105-027
**Title:** CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Ajay Kumar Tripathi; Nilu Agrawal
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal No. 1345 of 2014 (arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 11660 of 2008)
**Judgment:** 2017-04-28 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-01-01 (2007)
**Place:** Bhojpur, Bihar; city town: Jagdishpur; police station or unit: 147 Battalion, CRPF, Kashipur Silchar; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, 147 Battalion, CRPF (Kashipur, Silchar) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. \[name withheld\] was appointed as a CRPF constable in 147 Battalion at Kashipur, Silchar on his declaration of Scheduled Tribe status. Verification by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagdishpur found the caste certificate forged and fake and the appellant outside the ST category, and the Commandant dismissed him on 25.10.2007. A Single Bench dismissed his writ (CWJC 11660/2008) on 07.05.2014 after traversing the enquiry. On appeal, the Division Bench held services obtained by foul method cannot be protected by any court and the direct beneficiary cannot be rewarded for his own wrong. The appeal was dismissed and the dismissal from service stands.

> After due examination of the order impugned and the materials, we come to the finding that the learned single Judge has committed no error in dismissing the writ application because the appellant cannot be rewarded for a wrong committed by him and him alone as he was the direct beneficiary. Appeal is dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123739320/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-04-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Letters Patent Appeal No. 1345 of 2014 (arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 11660 of 2008)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123739320/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary source read; Division Bench dismissed LPA, upholding dismissal for forged ST certificate.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0023)

## Bihar Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs The State of Bihar and Others (CW-2017-0024)

**Record:** CW-2017-0024 (compiler id CWC-1025); case GAP3-105-026
**Title:** Bihar Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Rakesh Kumar
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12262 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2017-05-16 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-01-24 (1994)
**Place:** Aurangabad, Bihar; city town: Daudnagar; police station or unit: Daudnagar Police Station, Aurangabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Bihar Police (Daudnagar Police Station, Aurangabad) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

\[name withheld\], an Assistant Sub-Inspector posted at Daudnagar Police Station, Aurangabad, left for court work to Aurangabad on 24.01.1994 and absconded for about 630 days, reappearing only on 16.10.1995 at Police Centre Aurangabad. The DIG Magadh Range dismissed him on 14.02.2002 after a departmental proceeding in which he did not participate despite personal service of the charge memo; his memorial to the DGP was rejected on 26.08.2008. He challenged the dismissal under Article 226 alleging natural-justice violations. The Court examined the entire departmental record, found two witnesses had proved the charge with full opportunity given, and held 630-day absconsion rightly draws dismissal lest Force discipline suffer. The writ petition was dismissed and the dismissal from service stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Singh Case (Supra), the Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner remained absconding for about 630 days, the disciplinary authority has rightly passed order of dismissal of the petitioner. In such case there was no reason to take any lenient view, otherwise it would have hampered the discipline of the Armed Forces.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152515629/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Bihar Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-05-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12262 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152515629/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary source read; HC dismissed writ, upholding ASI's dismissal for 630-day absconsion.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0024)

## CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2017-0030)

**Record:** CW-2017-0030 (compiler id CWC-1020); case GAP3-105-021
**Title:** CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Prabhat Kumar Jha
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9039 of 2014 (with I.A. No. 6023 of 2017)
**Judgment:** 2017-09-04 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2010-03-13 (2010)
**Place:** Gaya, Bihar; city town: Barachatti; police station or unit: 205 COBRA Battalion, CRPF, Barachatti; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, 205 COBRA Battalion, CRPF (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

\[name withheld\], a constable in the 205 COBRA Battalion of the CRPF at Barachatti, Gaya, was dismissed on 18.01.2012 after a departmental proceeding found he had remained unauthorizedly absent from 13.03.2010 to 22.09.2010 (194 days) and had fled from PMCH Patna while under treatment. His appeal before the DIG (09.10.2012) and revision before the IG (04.09.2013) were rejected. He challenged the dismissal and appellate orders before the Patna High Court under Article 226. The Court found the absence was knowing and without sanctioned leave or justified reason, held that overstay by members of a disciplined force must be dealt with sternly, and found the punishment not disproportionate. The writ petition was dismissed and the dismissal from service stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner has committed gross misconduct for remaining absent from duty for 194 days without any sanctioned leave and without any justified reason. Over stayal or remaining absent unauthorizedly by a member of disciplined force requires to be dealt with sternly.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27796296/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-09-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9039 of 2014 (with I.A. No. 6023 of 2017)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27796296/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary source read; HC dismissed writ, upholding CRPF constable's dismissal for 194-day unauthorized absence.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0030)

## Central Reserve Police Constable (GD) vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2017-0031)

**Record:** CW-2017-0031 (compiler id CWC-1028); case GAP3-105-029
**Title:** Central Reserve Police Constable (GD) vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Prabhat Kumar Jha
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10516 of 2015
**Judgment:** 2017-09-06 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-06-05 (2013)
**Place:** Patna, Bihar; city town: Athmalgola; police station or unit: 265 Battalion (COBRA), Central Reserve Police Force; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (GD), 265 Battalion (COBRA), Central Reserve Police Force (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Patna High Court (Prabhat Kumar Jha J.) dismissed a CRPF constable's writ challenging his removal from service dated 21 March 2014. The court found three 2013 unauthorized-absence charges proved against a nine-year record of 17 absences that had previously drawn only minor confinement punishments. It held that such frequent yearly overstay by a member of a disciplined paramilitary force amounts to gross misconduct for which dismissal is the liability. The court rejected the disproportionality plea, noting the authorities' prior unexplained leniency, and left standing the removal already affirmed in appeal on 2 June 2015.

> The petitioner is a member of para military disciplined force and such frequent over-stayal of the petitioner in each and every year amounts to gross misconduct on which the petitioner is liable to be dismissed from service.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83655197/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Central Reserve Police Constable (GD) vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-09-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10516 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83655197/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; CRPF removal for habitual unauthorized absence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0031)

## Bihar Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others (CW-2017-0035)

**Record:** CW-2017-0035 (compiler id CWC-1021); case GAP3-105-022
**Title:** Bihar Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Prabhat Kumar Jha
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5459 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2017-10-12 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-05-16 (1999)
**Place:** Patna, Bihar; city town: Patna; police station or unit: Patna district constabulary, Bihar Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bihar Police (Patna district constabulary; appointed Muzaffarpur) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. \[name withheld\] was selected as a Bihar Police constable on 16.05.1999 under Advertisement 1/1998, where height was the sole criterion, after declaring 186 cm height in his application. A later verification ordered by the High Court found his height had been wrongly recorded and he did not meet the criterion, and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna dismissed him on 25.11.2013 following a departmental proceeding; his appeal (DIG, 25.07.2014) and memorial (DGP, 10.02.2015) were rejected. He challenged the dismissal under Article 226. The Court found the appointment had been secured through fraud and manipulation, held that similarly-placed wrongly measured selectees had likewise been denied appointment and illegality cannot be perpetuated, and found no merit in the writ. The writ petition was dismissed and the dismissal from service stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, in my view, the illegality should not be allowed to be perpetuated any more and the petitioner, who got his appointment through fraud and manipulation, does not deserve any leniency.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23417562/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** Bihar Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-10-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5459 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23417562/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary source read; HC dismissed writ, upholding constable's dismissal for appointment secured by height fraud.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0035)

## Manjhaul Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others (CW-2017-0012)

**Record:** CW-2017-0012 (compiler id CWC-0047); case BIHAR1-010
**Title:** Manjhaul Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Ajay Kumar Tripathi; Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal No. 736 of 2014 (arising out of CWJC No. 20311 of 2011)
**Judgment:** 2017-11-13 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-09-30 (2009)
**Place:** Begusarai, Bihar; city town: Manjhaul; police station or unit: Quick Mobile, Patliputra Police Station, Patna; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 307; IPC 34; Arms Act s.27; IPC 302; Constitution Art. 311(2)(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Quick Mobile, Patliputra Police Station, Patna (earlier Pandarak PS) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Manjhaul resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court upheld the dismissal of Patna constable, arrested on 2 October 2009 in Manjhaul PS Case No. 160/2009 under Sections 307/34 IPC and the Arms Act, later converted to murder under Section 302 IPC. The SSP Patna dismissed him without enquiry under Article 311(2)(b), recording that holding an enquiry was not reasonably practicable; the DIG Magadh and then a Single Judge affirmed. The Court held that his subsequent criminal acquittal, secured after all prosecution witnesses turned hostile, did not vitiate the dismissal and that dispensing with the enquiry was justified. The LPA was dismissed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the materials available on the records in form of the admission of the petitioner-appellant, seizure of his service revolver with the fired cartridge and the remaining 34 live cartridges, the fact that the deceased \[name withheld\] was killed by the bullet fired from the said service revolver of the appellant as found by the supervising authority in the rank of Sr.S.P. are the convincing factors on the basis of which the Sr.S.P., Patna has reached to a conclusion and dispensed with the departmental enquiry as it was not reasonably practicable to hold the same because any further delay in throwing out the appellant could have shaken the public confidence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163362002/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** Manjhaul Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-11-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Letters Patent Appeal No. 736 of 2014 (arising out of CWJC No. 20311 of 2011)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163362002/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** LPA dismissed; 311(2)(b) dismissal over murder arrest upheld despite hostile-witness acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0012)

## Union of India and Others vs CRPF Constable (CW-2017-0037)

**Record:** CW-2017-0037 (compiler id CWC-1001); case GAP3-105-002
**Title:** Union of India and Others vs CRPF Constable
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Rajendra Menon; Anil Kumar Upadhyay
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 1502 of 2013 / (2018) 2 PLJR 790
**Judgment:** 2017-11-23 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bihar; police station or unit: 4th Battalion, CRPF; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** CRPF Act 1949 s.11; CRPF Rules 1955 r.15
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, 4th Battalion, CRPF (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Delete 'already affirmed in appeal, revision and memorial'; judgment records only writ (CWJC 3390/2009) and LPA 1502/2013.

> In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the learned Division Benches of this Court, we find that once the employee is found to have committed a misconduct which falls under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1955 the action taken for dismissal cannot be interfered with by this Court.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1032014/union-of-india-and-ors-appellant-hash-sanjay-kumar-ojha-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a (unnumbered LPA judgment dated 23.11.2017)
**display title redacted:** Union of India and Others vs CRPF Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-11-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2018) 2 PLJR 790', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1032014/union-of-india-and-ors-appellant-hash-sanjay-kumar-ojha-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB restored dismissal of CRPF constable for plural-marriage misconduct.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0037)

## Munger District Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others (CW-2017-0040)

**Record:** CW-2017-0040 (compiler id CWC-1022); case GAP3-105-023
**Title:** Munger District Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Madhuresh Prasad
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10321 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2017-12-13 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-06-06 (2011)
**Place:** Patna, Bihar; city town: Patna; police station or unit: Munger District Police (escort party, Munger Jail to PMCH Patna); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Munger District Police, Bihar Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. \[name withheld\], a Munger District Police constable, was detailed on escort command 547412 dated 06.06.2011 to escort undertrial Amit Mandal from Munger Jail to PMCH Patna with four constables and a Hawaldar. He reported 35 hours late, lodged the prisoner with his mother and wife in Janta Hotel rooms on Govind Mitra Road, Patna from 08 to 16.06.2011 instead of the prisoner ward, and the prisoner absconded on 16.06.2011 with the loss reported a day late. After an earlier dismissal was remanded by the DGP for service of the enquiry report, the SP Munger dismissed him again on 12.01.2013; his appeal (DIG, 30.06.2013) and memorial (DGP, 12.12.2013) were rejected. The Court found the charges stood admitted, identical punishment had been imposed on the five other escort-party members, and the procedure complied with natural justice and fair play. The writ petition was dismissed and the dismissal from service stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Such gross dereliction of duty and the act of indiscipline cannot be countenanced by member of the police service where duty is to protect the public safety with discipline.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9416790/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Munger District Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-12-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10321 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9416790/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary source read; HC dismissed writ, upholding dismissal for escort dereliction letting undertrial abscond.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0040)

## Bihar Police Constable v. State of Bihar and Others (CW-2018-0021)

**Record:** CW-2018-0021 (compiler id CWC-1050); case GAP3-106-006
**Title:** Bihar Police Constable v. State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
**Case number / citation:** CWJC No. 3524 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2018-01-04 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated (2006)
**Place:** Buxar, Bihar; city town: Buxar; police station or unit: Buxar district police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bihar Police, Buxar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable, appointed on compassionate ground in Buxar, was dismissed on 16.01.2007 (with effect from 12.01.2007) for repeated prolonged unauthorised absence, about 128 days during basic training and 82 days on Durga Puja duty in 2006; his appeal was rejected in 2009. He pleaded violation of natural justice and produced jaundice certificates only with the writ. The Court held natural justice is not a strait-jacket formula, police discipline and larger public interest outweighed the individual interest of an unconfirmed absconder, and no illegality or infirmity vitiated the impugned orders. The writ application was dismissed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The facts would show that the petitioner not only remained absconding for about 128 days while he was sent for basic training, he repeated the same conduct by remaining absent unauthorizedly for 82 days when he was sent to perform his duty during Durga Puja festival. During all this period he did not take trouble to inform his employer about his whereabouts and the reasons for his absconding from duty.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176523706/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Bihar Police Constable v. State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-01-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'CWJC No. 3524 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176523706/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; writ dismissed, dismissal for absence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0021)

## Bihar Police Constable v. State of Bihar & Ors. (CW-2018-0012)

**Record:** CW-2018-0012 (compiler id CWC-0664); case SWOTHERM-028
**Title:** Bihar Police Constable v. State of Bihar & Ors.
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Mohit Kumar Shah
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20236 of 2010 / 2018 SCC OnLine Pat 1703
**Judgment:** 2018-09-11 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-01-09 (2008)
**Place:** Samastipur, Bihar; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bihar Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. Constable, appointed on compassionate ground in July 1998, absconded from duty without information on several occasions, including during training at BMP-5 Patna from January 2008. After an enquiry proved the charges and a second show-cause notice, the SP Samastipur dismissed him on 22 December 2009, and his departmental appeal was rejected on 8 June 2010. The Patna High Court held ample evidence proved the guilt, past punishments for unauthorised absence could be considered, and a high level of discipline is imperative in police forces, and dismissed the writ petition as without merit. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Moreover, this Court also finds that a high level of discipline is imperative in the Police and Armed Forces and even one isolated incident of discipline is enough to take the most harsh step against the delinquent. However, in the instant case, the petitioner is a habitual offender and had absconded on several occasions from his duties without any information to the respondents, hence no mercy is required to be shown with the petitioner especially in view of his proved misconduct.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187888229/); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/09/15/high-level-of-discipline-imperative-in-the-police-forces-absconding-on-various-occasions-cannot-be-accepted-patna-hc/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Bihar Police Constable v. State of Bihar & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-09-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2018 SCC OnLine Pat 1703', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187888229/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/09/15/high-level-of-discipline-imperative-in-the-police-forces-absconding-on-various-occasions-cannot-be-accepted-patna-hc/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC dismissed writ, upheld dismissal of habitually absconding constable; no merit found.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0012)

## Bihar Police Constable v. State of Bihar and Others (CW-2019-0027)

**Record:** CW-2019-0027 (compiler id CWC-1045); case GAP3-106-001
**Title:** Bihar Police Constable v. State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi; Anjana Mishra
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal No. 1485 of 2018 (in CWJC No. 12182 of 2012) / 2019 (2) PLJR 908
**Judgment:** 2019-04-16 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated (2004)
**Place:** Bhojpur, Bihar; city town: Ara; police station or unit: Bhojpur district police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bihar Police, Bhojpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable, appointed in Kaimur in 1999 and transferred to Bhojpur in 2004, absented himself from duty from March 2004 to March 2005 and was dismissed on 13.10.2007 after a departmental inquiry. His appeal, memorial and writ petition (CWJC No. 12182 of 2012, dismissed 06.09.2018 by Nilu Agrawal J.) all failed. The Division Bench held the inquiry finding of unauthorised absence was supported by evidence, the ailment defence was unproved, and the penalty was not disproportionate for a member of a disciplined force. The Court found no perversity or procedural error and rejected the Letters Patent Appeal.

> The appellant having not chosen to join his duties on his own volition, therefore, did not deserve to be a member of the disciplined Force.

**Sources (2):** [patnahighcourt.gov.in](https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxNDg1IzIwMTgjMSNO-cLx5oZEdFhA=); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/964685/ramesh-ram-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-ors-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Bihar Police Constable v. State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-04-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2019 (2) PLJR 908', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxNDg1IzIwMTgjMSNO-cLx5oZEdFhA=', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/964685/ramesh-ram-appellant-hash-state-of-bihar-ors-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** LPA verified on Patna HC site (PDF) plus Single Judge order; appeal rejected, dismissal upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0027)

## Gaya Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Ors. (CW-2019-0036)

**Record:** CW-2019-0036 (compiler id CWC-0881); case GAP2-48-004
**Title:** Gaya Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Ors.
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19188 of 2019 / 2020 (1) PLJR 184
**Judgment:** 2019-11-04 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-09-17 (1998)
**Place:** Gaya, Bihar; police station or unit: Pretshila Parwat police picket, Gaya; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Pretshila Parwat police picket, Gaya (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition by constable seeking reconsideration of his 1999 dismissal in light of his 2019 criminal acquittal. The court noted he had been dismissed after Departmental Proceeding No. 62 of 1998 proved he abandoned his post and arms during the 17-09-1998 Naxalite attack on the Pretshila Parwat picket in Gaya, in which two constables were killed and rifles looted. It held departmental findings rest on evidence different from criminal trials and the dismissal had attained finality with the dismissal of his earlier writ in 2012. The dismissal from service was therefore left undisturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the departmental proceeding, the allegation against the petitioner was of having abandoned his Post and his Arms without any due permission from the superior authority.

**Sources (3):** [patnahighcourt.gov.in](https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTkxODgjMjAxOSMxI04=-Mkk2Y0J2e2Y=); [samvidalaw.com](https://www.samvidalaw.com/patna-high-court-dismissal-after-acquittal-en/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1017190/pdf/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Gaya Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-11-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2020 (1) PLJR 184', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTkxODgjMjAxOSMxI04=-Mkk2Y0J2e2Y=', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.samvidalaw.com/patna-high-court-dismissal-after-acquittal-en/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1017190/pdf/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC refused to reopen 1999 dismissal of constable who deserted post and arms in 1998 Naxalite attack; criminal acquittal immaterial.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0036)

## Patna Man vs The State of Bihar and Others (CW-2020-0014)

**Record:** CW-2020-0014 (compiler id CWC-0074); case GAP14-002
**Title:** Patna Man vs The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Mohit Kumar Shah
**Case number / citation:** CWJC No. 609 of 2016 / 2020(11) eILR(PAT) HC 1426
**Judgment:** 2020-11-13 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-12-28 (2000)
**Place:** Patna, Bihar; city town: Patna; police station or unit: Agamkuan Police Station, Patna; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Patna man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. On 28 December 2000, a Patna man was shot dead near Kumhar police post while on his way to Sandalpur Hostel, during an exchange of fire between police and criminals; official reports admitted an innocent passerby died in the shootout. His father moved the DM, the NHRC and an earlier writ without relief before filing this petition. The court held the State strictly liable in public law for the Article 21 violation, ruling negligence need not be proved and operational compulsions cannot justify loss of innocent life, and awarded Rs.10,00,000 compensation with 24% interest on delayed payment while declining compassionate appointment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> मुआवजे के रूप में 1000000 रुपये (के वल दस लाख रुपये) प्राप्त करने का उत्तरदायी है।

**Sources (2):** [patnahighcourt.gov.in](https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/ILR/viewpdf.aspx?T=HI&ID=NDg5MQ%3d%3d-SLcQ1q493uE%3d); [indialegallive.com](https://indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/courts-news/patna-hc-bihar-government-police-encounter-compensation/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** Patna Man vs The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-11-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2020(11) eILR(PAT) HC 1426', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/ILR/viewpdf.aspx?T=HI&ID=NDg5MQ%3d%3d-SLcQ1q493uE%3d', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/courts-news/patna-hc-bihar-government-police-encounter-compensation/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Single-judge Hindi judgment verified; Rs 10L for passerby killed in police shootout.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2020-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0014)

## Parsa Man vs The State Of Bihar, Through The Director General Of Police & Ors (CW-2020-0013)

**Record:** CW-2020-0013 (compiler id CWC-0042); case SWILLEGA-026; aliases: CWC-1453
**Title:** Parsa Man vs The State Of Bihar, Through The Director General Of Police & Ors
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Sanjay Karol; S. Kumar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 333 of 2020 / AIRONLINE 2020 PAT 901
**Judgment:** 2020-12-22 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2020-04-29 (2020)
**Place:** Saran, Bihar; city town: Parsa; police station or unit: Parsa Police Station / Dariapur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226; CrPC s.56; CrPC s.154
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Parsa Police Station; Police Officers, Dariapur Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Parsa man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court held that milk-van driver \[name withheld\] and his vehicle were illegally detained by Saran district police from April 29 to May 15, 2020 without registration of an FIR, which was lodged only after a habeas corpus petition was filed. The Court rejected the police's concocted explanation regarding an untraceable injured pedestrian as an afterthought to justify prolonged unauthorized detention. Finding a grave violation of Article 21 and statutory detention safeguards, the Court awarded Rs. 5,00,000 in compensation to the driver payable by the State of Bihar and directed the Director General of Police to initiate criminal proceedings and conclude disciplinary actions against the erring police officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The State of Bihar shall pay compensation to the detenue, namely, Mr. A Parsa man @ a Parsa man, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lac) for the violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51306147/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-386294.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/patna-high-court-5-lakh-compensation-truck-drivers-police-excess-illegal-detention-fundamental-rights-article-21-167568); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/patna-high-court-rs-5-lakhs-compensation-for-truck-driver-illegal-detention)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 63
**display title redacted:** Parsa Man vs The State Of Bihar, Through The Director General Of Police & Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-12-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2020 PAT 901', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51306147/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-386294.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/patna-high-court-5-lakh-compensation-truck-drivers-police-excess-illegal-detention-fundamental-rights-article-21-167568', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/patna-high-court-rs-5-lakhs-compensation-for-truck-driver-illegal-detention', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC found illegal detention of milk van driver and vehicle, ordered Rs. 5,00,000 compensation and criminal/disciplinary proceedings against police.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2020-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0013)

## Munger Man vs The State of Bihar and Ors. (CW-2021-0015)

**Record:** CW-2021-0015 (compiler id CWC-0885); case GAP2-48-008
**Title:** Munger Man vs The State of Bihar and Ors.
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 68 of 2021 / AIRONLINE 2021 PAT 267
**Judgment:** 2021-04-07 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2020-10-26 (2020)
**Place:** Munger, Bihar; city town: Munger; police station or unit: Munger Police (Durga immersion duty), Kotwali P.S. area; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police, Munger; Various, Munger Police (immersion duty) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Munger man, age 18 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court awarded Rs 10,00,000 compensation to the father of 18-year-old a Munger man, an unarmed bystander killed in police firing on a Durga idol immersion procession at Munger on 26-10-2020. The court held the State strictly liable for safeguarding life, noting the petitioner's son was uninvolved in any violence and the probe had languished with the alleged firing arms never examined. It continued court-monitored CID investigation and left private-law remedies open; the Supreme Court dismissed the State's SLP on 04-06-2021, making the award final. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioner's son was involved in any act of violence. Thus, in the light of the aforementioned discussions, this Court directs the State respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10 laks towards compensation to the petitioner who being the father of the deceased has remained in mental pains and sufferings and has to further remain in mental pain as also deprivation in his life on several counts because of the death of his young son.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/patna-hc-compensation-in-munger-durga-pooja-firing-incident-state-bound-to-protect-citizens-lives-391627.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40421264/); [livelaw-cnlu.refread.com](https://livelaw-cnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/munger-firing-incident-supreme-court-upholds-patna-hc-order-granting-10l-compensation-to-bereaved-family-pending-investigation-394531.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Protest policing', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Munger Man vs The State of Bihar and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-04-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2021 PAT 267', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/patna-hc-compensation-in-munger-durga-pooja-firing-incident-state-bound-to-protect-citizens-lives-391627.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40421264/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://livelaw-cnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/munger-firing-incident-supreme-court-upholds-patna-hc-order-granting-10l-compensation-to-bereaved-family-pending-investigation-394531.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC awarded Rs 10L for 18-year-old bystander killed in Munger police firing on immersion procession; SLP dismissed 04-06-2021.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2021-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0015)

## Railway Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Ors (CW-2023-0034)

**Record:** CW-2023-0034 (compiler id CWC-1053); case GAP3-107-002
**Title:** Railway Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Ors
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11616 of 2013 / 2023 (1) PLJR 552
**Judgment:** 2023-01-09 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-01-01 (2000)
**Place:** Munger, Bihar; city town: Jamalpur; police station or unit: Railway Police, Jamalpur (Jamalpur-Howrah Super Express escort party); force: railway
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; Constitution Art. 311
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Railway Police, Jamalpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jamalpur resident; Jamalpur resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition of Railway Police constable, a member of the Jamalpur-Howrah Super Express escort party who allegedly extorted passengers and then shot dead two persons during an altercation in 2000. The court held the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jamalpur had recorded cogent reasons for dispensing with the departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) and Rule 20(ii) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, since the petitioner had absconded after service of the charge-sheet. It sustained the dismissal order dated 6 September 2000 along with the appellate and memorial rejections. The court further noted the charges stood proved in the criminal trial with a conviction under s.302 IPC, which independently bars reinstatement under Article 311(2)(a). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The charges levelled against the petitioner have been ultimately proved in the criminal trial and he has already been convicted of offense under 302.

**Sources (2):** [patnahighcourt.gov.in](https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTE2MTYjMjAxMyMxI04=-txaKkEeLycU=); [samvidalaw.com](https://www.samvidalaw.com/patna-high-court-article-311-dismissal-without-inquiry-en/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Railway Police Constable vs The State of Bihar and Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-01-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2023 (1) PLJR 552', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTE2MTYjMjAxMyMxI04=-txaKkEeLycU=', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.samvidalaw.com/patna-high-court-article-311-dismissal-without-inquiry-en/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified on Patna HC portal; writ dismissed, dismissal of railway constable upheld; s.302 conviction recorded by the court.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0034)

## Bajitpur Man and Anr. vs The State of Bihar and Ors. (CW-2024-0031)

**Record:** CW-2024-0031 (compiler id CWC-0884); case GAP2-48-007
**Title:** Bajitpur Man and Anr. vs The State of Bihar and Ors.
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Bibek Chaudhuri
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 455 of 2017
**Judgment:** 2024-02-12 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2017-02-07 (2017)
**Place:** Nalanda, Bihar; city town: Bajitpur; police station or unit: Chiksaura Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC s.41; CrPC s.41A; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating Officer, Chiksaura Police Station, Nalanda (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bajitpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court held that the investigating officer of Chiksaura police station illegally rearrested a Bajitpur man after Section 41-A CrPC protection, without recalling the bail bond through a magisterial order and without filing the Section 41 checklist or recording arrest grounds. The court held this violated the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21, while merely cautioning the magistrate who had passed the remand order in haste. It directed the State to pay Rs 2,00,000 compensation within 60 days, recoverable from the salary (or pension) of the erring officer. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> At the same time, this Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer committed a substantial error by arresting the petitioner no.1 after he was released on bail bond without recalling the bond through a Magestrial order. For such wrong, petitioner's valuable fundamental right was violated.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/133235252/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Bajitpur Man and Anr. vs The State of Bihar and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-02-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 455 of 2017', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/133235252/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held rearrest after s.41-A protection without checklist violated Art.21; Rs 2L compensation recoverable from IO's salary.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0031)

## Siwan Man v. The State of Bihar and Others (CW-2024-0006)

**Record:** CW-2024-0006 (compiler id CWC-0750); case SWCUSTOD-004; aliases: CWC-0040
**Title:** Siwan Man v. The State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Bibek Chaudhuri
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2525 of 2017
**Judgment:** 2024-04-23 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2017-07-04 (2017)
**Place:** Siwan, Bihar; city town: Siwan; police station or unit: Siwan Muffasil Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226; Indian Evidence Act 1872 s.106; CrPC s.167(5)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Muffasil Police Station, Siwan; Officer-in-Charge, Town Police Station, Siwan (4 in record)
**Victims:** Siwan man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court held the Officer-in-Charge, lock-up in-charge and all personnel on duty at Siwan Muffasil Police Station lock-up on 4 July 2017 responsible for explaining how a Siwan man was assaulted with lathis in custody, failing which they are liable to be prosecuted. A Siwan man had been arrested on 4 July 2017 and produced before the magistrate only on 8 July 2017, after being beaten, kicked and punched in the lock-up. Applying Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Court held the custodial facts were within the special knowledge of the police. The Court directed the Police Department to pay Rs 2,00,000 compensation to the victim and ordered the Superintendent of Police, Siwan, to lodge a criminal complaint against the implicated personnel. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus, applying the provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court comes to the conclusion that the Officer-in-charge, lock up in-charge and all other police officers and personnel who were on duty on 4th of July, 2017 from 2 P.M to 5 P.M. are responsible to state how and by whom the son of the petitioner was assaulted in the police lock up of Siwan Muffasil Police Station.

**Sources (5):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/dinesh-kumar-singh-v-the-state-of-bihar-ors-1612466.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/dinesh-kumar-singh-v-the-state-of-bihar-ors-criminal-writ-jurisdiction-case-no2525-of-2017-patna-high-court-1532711); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/04/29/pathc-orders-department-of-police-to-pay-rs2lakh-compensation-to-man-subjected-to-custodial-violence-police-atrocity-legal-news/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149912002/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/patna-high-court/patna-high-court-2lakh-compensation-severe-torture-assault-police-custody-violence-256269)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Siwan Man v. The State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-04-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2525 of 2017', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/dinesh-kumar-singh-v-the-state-of-bihar-ors-1612466.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/dinesh-kumar-singh-v-the-state-of-bihar-ors-criminal-writ-jurisdiction-case-no2525-of-2017-patna-high-court-1532711', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/04/29/pathc-orders-department-of-police-to-pay-rs2lakh-compensation-to-man-subjected-to-custodial-violence-police-atrocity-legal-news/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149912002/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/patna-high-court/patna-high-court-2lakh-compensation-severe-torture-assault-police-custody-violence-256269', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC held Siwan Muffasil PS lock-up personnel responsible for custodial assault on a Siwan man, awarding Rs 2,00,000 compensation and directing SP Siwan to lodge a criminal complaint.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0006)

## Bhagalpur Police Inspector vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2024-0038)

**Record:** CW-2024-0038 (compiler id CWC-0879); case GAP2-48-002
**Title:** Bhagalpur Police Inspector vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sujit Narayan Prasad; Arun Kumar Rai
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 385 of 2023
**Judgment:** 2024-06-12 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-11-18 (1997)
**Place:** Bhagalpur, Bihar; city town: Bhagalpur; police station or unit: Kotwali Police Station, Bhagalpur (at time of misconduct); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 311(2)(a)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Kotwali Police Station, Bhagalpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The appellant, Inspector-in-Charge of Kotwali police station at the time, was convicted of criminal contempt with eight other policemen for the November 1997 Bhagalpur court-premises disruption, a conviction affirmed by the Supreme Court, and was dismissed from service by Jharkhand in 2004 after bifurcation. His departmental appeal failed and the Single Judge dismissed his writ; he sought parity with co-delinquents whose dismissals had been reduced. The Division Bench held that a public servant whose criminal conviction stands to the final forum cannot be retained under Article 311(2)(a), that parity cannot be claimed from illegal relief given to others, and dismissed the appeal, sustaining the dismissal.

> This Court, considering the fact that once the public servant has been convicted and the said conviction order has sustained upto the final adjudicatory forum, i.e., the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, is of the view that such public servant cannot be allowed to retain on the post, otherwise, the same will hit the constitutional mandate as under Article 311 (2)(a) of the Constitution of India.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94038206/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 53
**display title redacted:** Bhagalpur Police Inspector vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-06-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'L.P.A. No. 385 of 2023', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94038206/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal over Supreme Court-affirmed Bhagalpur contempt conviction sustained; no parity with co-delinquents.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0038)

## Jehanabad Woman vs The State of Bihar & Ors (CW-2025-0017)

**Record:** CW-2025-0017 (compiler id CWC-0044); case EAST---NORTHEAST-001
**Title:** Jehanabad Woman vs The State of Bihar & Ors
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad; Sourendra Pandey
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 989 of 2025 / 2025(4) PLJR 230; 2025 (6) BLJ 52
**Judgment:** 2025-09-01 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-04-29 (2025)
**Place:** Jehanabad, Bihar; city town: Jehanabad; police station or unit: Makhdumpur Police Station and Town Police Station, Jehanabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; BNSS s.35; BNSS s.48; BNSS s.187(1)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Makhdumpur PS, Jehanabad; Station House Officer, Town PS, Jehanabad; Investigating Officer, Jehanabad Town PS Case No. 337 of 2025 (3 in record)
**Victims:** Jehanabad woman; Jehanabad man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court held that Jehanabad police illegally detained a Jehanabad woman, picked up from her home on 29 April 2025 and lodged in a shelter home for about five days, and a Jehanabad man, picked up as a suspect on 1 May 2025, without arrest memos, family intimation or production before a Magistrate. The Court found the detentions without any sanction of law and in violation of BNSS procedure and the D.K. Basu safeguards, with the State conceding it had no convincing defence. It awarded Rs 1,00,000 to each victim payable by the State within thirty days, recoverable from the salaries of the three erring officers, and directed the DGP to issue arrest and detention guidelines. A third detenue already in lawful judicial custody was excluded from relief. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Picking someone from his/her house in the name of interrogation without informing his/her family member/relatives/friend the reason and the place of detention and then keeping him/her in detention without obtaining an order from the Jurisdictional Magistrate is completely unlawful

**Sources (2):** [patnahighcourt.gov.in](https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/ILR/viewpdf.aspx?T=EN&ID=MzQ5MQ%3d%3d-5ya4Hpd9X8E%3d); [samvidalaw.com](https://www.samvidalaw.com/illegal-police-detention-and-compensation-ordered-patna-high-court-2025/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 31
**display title redacted:** Jehanabad Woman vs The State of Bihar & Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-09-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2025(4) PLJR 230; 2025 (6) BLJ 52', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/ILR/viewpdf.aspx?T=EN&ID=MzQ5MQ%3d%3d-5ya4Hpd9X8E%3d', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.samvidalaw.com/illegal-police-detention-and-compensation-ordered-patna-high-court-2025/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Illegal detention of two; Rs 1L each verified via citations + secondary (PDF fetch failed).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0017)

## Gaya Man @ \[name withheld\] vs State of Bihar through Principal Secretary (Home) (CW-2025-0067)

**Record:** CW-2025-0067 (compiler id CWC-1355); case cop-br-hc-3
**Title:** Gaya Man @ \[name withheld\] vs State of Bihar through Principal Secretary (Home)
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad; Sourendra Pandey
**Case number / citation:** CR. WJC No. 2761 of 2025
**Judgment:** 2025-11-13 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-09-29 (2025)
**Place:** Gaya, Bihar; police station or unit: Central Jail, Gaya; Sarbahda Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21 Constitution of India
**Officers (gated display forms):** Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Gaya; Deputy Jailor, Central Jail, Gaya; Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya (3 in record)
**Victims:** Gaya man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court awarded Rs 2 lakh compensation to \[name withheld\] for illegal detention of 5-18 days after his bail release on 29 September 2025. The Jail Superintendent kept him confined without any authorized detention order after a production warrant had expired. The IG Prisons admitted 'illegal detention for at least five days'. The Court held the detention violated Article 21, directed recovery of compensation from the erring official, and ordered the IG Prisons to issue state-wide guidelines to all Jail Superintendents within two weeks.

> This Court has no iota of doubt that in this case, the life and liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed to a great extent by keeping him in confinement for 18 days without any authorized detention order from a competent court of law. This Court is further disturbed from the fact that perhaps the same thing is happening as a matter of practice in the State of Bihar.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189081861/); [sabrangindia.in](https://www.sabrangindia.in/six-days-behind-bars-after-bail-patna-high-court-orders-%E2%82%B92-lakh-relief-flags-state-wide-pattern-of-illegal-detention)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** Paragraph 5
**display title redacted:** Gaya Man @ \[name withheld\] vs State of Bihar through Principal Secretary (Home)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-11-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'CR. WJC No. 2761 of 2025', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189081861/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.sabrangindia.in/six-days-behind-bars-after-bail-patna-high-court-orders-%E2%82%B92-lakh-relief-flags-state-wide-pattern-of-illegal-detention', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0067](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0067)

## Puraini Boy vs The State Of Bihar (CW-2026-0003)

**Record:** CW-2026-0003 (compiler id CWC-0751); case BIHAR2-006; aliases: CWC-0054
**Title:** Puraini Boy vs The State Of Bihar
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad; Ritesh Kumar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3077 of 2025 / 2026 (1) PLJR 611
**Judgment:** 2026-01-09 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-10-23 (2025)
**Place:** Madhepura, Bihar; city town: Puraini; police station or unit: Puraini Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Puraini Police Station, Madhepura; Inspector, Madhepura, Bihar Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** Puraini boy, age 15 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court (Division Bench) allowed a habeas corpus writ for minor a 15-year-old boy, arrested on October 23, 2025 by IO of Puraini Police Station in Puraini PS Case No. 128 of 2025 even though the boy had been shown as not-chargesheeted in Chargesheet No. 235 dated September 1, 2025. Acting solely on a DIG Koshi Range supervision note without collecting fresh material or seeking court permission for further investigation, the IO described the boy as 19 and he spent over two and a half months incarcerated; the Juvenile later confirmed he was about 15 years 6 months at the time of occurrence. Holding his Right to Life and Liberty violated by misuse of police power, the Court ordered his forthwith release, awarded Rs. 5,00,000 compensation plus Rs. 15,000 costs payable by the State within one month, and directed the DGP Bihar to hold an administrative inquiry and recover the sum from the erring officials within six months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the entire facts and circumstances and the materials which have been brought before this Court, this Court is fully satisfied that the liberty of the petitioner in the present case has been curtailed and his Right to Life and Liberty has been violated by the act of the police officials.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/md-jahid-minor-vs-state-of-bihar-patna-high-court-645963.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/patna-high-court/patna-high-court-slams-saharsa-police-25-month-illegal-detention-juvenile-5-lakh-compensation-518452); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/patna-high-court/md-jahid-minor-v-the-state-of-bihar-right-to-life-liberty-erring-officials-rs-5-lakh-unlawful-arrest-1604379); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/patna-high-court-orders-5-lakh-compensation-for-illegally-jailing-teen-for-25-months)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Puraini Boy vs The State Of Bihar
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['compensation_inr'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-01-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026 (1) PLJR 611', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/md-jahid-minor-vs-state-of-bihar-patna-high-court-645963.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/patna-high-court/patna-high-court-slams-saharsa-police-25-month-illegal-detention-juvenile-5-lakh-compensation-518452', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/patna-high-court/md-jahid-minor-v-the-state-of-bihar-right-to-life-liberty-erring-officials-rs-5-lakh-unlawful-arrest-1604379', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/patna-high-court-orders-5-lakh-compensation-for-illegally-jailing-teen-for-25-months', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC (DB) held arrest of 15-year-old Md. Jahid unlawful, ordered release and Rs. 5 lakh compensation plus Rs. 15,000 costs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 15, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 15-year-old boy'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0003)

## Buxar Man vs State of Bihar through Director General of Police (CW-2026-0077)

**Record:** CW-2026-0077 (compiler id CWC-1354); case cop-br-hc-2
**Title:** Buxar Man vs State of Bihar through Director General of Police
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Jitendra Kumar
**Case number / citation:** CR. WJC No. 2515 of 2024
**Judgment:** 2026-06-16 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-07-04 (2024)
**Place:** Buxar, Bihar; police station or unit: Murar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Section 197 CrPC / Section 218 BNSS (sanction not required)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer (former), Murar Police Station, Buxar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Buxar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The Patna High Court directed registration of FIR against the former SHO of Murar Police Station for brutally assaulting \[name withheld\] and breaking both his legs on 4 July 2024. The Court held that a brutal assault by a police officer on a citizen is not part of official duty, so no prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required. The Court rejected the police claim that the victim slipped in rain, relying on X-ray reports. The investigation was ordered to be transferred to CID, and the DGP was directed to submit a compliance report within 30 days.

> Moreover, for prosecution of the accused, who happened to be a police officer, does not require even sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC/ 218 B.N.S.S. because such brutal act on the part of the police officer against a poor man is not a part of his official duty.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125628724/); [timesofindia.indiatimes.com](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/legal/news/court-warns-unchecked-police-brutality-could-turn-force-like-nazi-germany-orders-fir-against-cop-who-broke-mans-legs/articleshow/131874146.cms); [newindianexpress.com](https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/bihar/2026/Jul/22/nazi-style-policing-comes-under-bashing); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/patna-high-court/manish-kumar-v-the-state-of-bihar-alleged-police-brutality-police-registration-sho-1616409)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** Paragraph 6
**display title redacted:** Buxar Man vs State of Bihar through Director General of Police
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-06-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'CR. WJC No. 2515 of 2024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125628724/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/legal/news/court-warns-unchecked-police-brutality-could-turn-force-like-nazi-germany-orders-fir-against-cop-who-broke-mans-legs/articleshow/131874146.cms', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/bihar/2026/Jul/22/nazi-style-policing-comes-under-bashing', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/patna-high-court/manish-kumar-v-the-state-of-bihar-alleged-police-brutality-police-registration-sho-1616409', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Summary names an individual police officer (\[name withheld\]); the register must not name officers in any field (officers are tracked by rank/unit/role only) - name removed; All other facts verified correct: CR. WJC 2515/2024, Justice Jitendra Kumar, 16-06-2026, Murar PS Buxar, 04.07.2024 assault, no sanction under 197 CrPC/218 BNSS, X-ray relied on, CID investigation, DGP compliance report within 30 days, quote verbatim
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0077](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0077)

## Chandigarh Administration, UT Chandigarh and Others v. \[name withheld\] (CW-1996-0001)

**Record:** CW-1996-0001 (compiler id CWC-0066); case CHANDI-012
**Title:** Chandigarh Administration, UT Chandigarh and Others v. \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. S. Paripoornan; B. P. Jeevan Reddy
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 6954 of 1996
**Judgment:** 1996-03-26 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-12-07 (1993)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh; city town: Chandigarh; police station or unit: Police Station Sector-11, UT Police Chandigarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 311(2)(b); Constitution Art 311(3)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Sector-11, Chandigarh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chandigarh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of Sub-Inspector of Police Station Sector-11, Chandigarh, who had extorted Rs 50,000 from fake-passport accused \[name withheld\] and demanded Rs 50,000 more with threats. The DSP (Central)'s March 1994 report affirmed the complaint and recorded that witnesses were terrorised and unwilling to pursue the matter in court, leading the SSP to dismiss him under Article 311(2)(b). Setting aside the Tribunal's order for \[name withheld\], the Court dismissed the appeal concerning co-respondent SI, whose minor charge lacked material showing intimidation.

> The order read as a whole and the accompanying report of the D.S.P. and the endorsement of S.S.P. on the report do clearly establish that it was respondent who was intimidating and terrorising the said persons. The judgment and order of the Tribunal in O.A. 366-Ch/94 is accordingly set aside and the appeal arising from SLP (C) 26926 of 1995 is allowed.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/684094/chandigarh-administration-union-territory-chandigarh-and-others-appellant-hash-ajay-manchanda-et/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Chandigarh Administration, UT Chandigarh and Others v. \[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-03-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Appeal No. 6954 of 1996', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/684094/chandigarh-administration-union-territory-chandigarh-and-others-appellant-hash-ajay-manchanda-et/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs 50K-extortion SI's dismissal restored; \[name withheld\] relief stands (excluded).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1996-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0001)

## Rattan Chand v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors. (CW-1996-0010)

**Record:** CW-1996-0010 (compiler id CWC-0565); case SWFAKEEN-030
**Title:** Rattan Chand v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors.
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: R.L. Anand
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Petition No. 11670 of 1993 / 2(1997) ACC 108
**Judgment:** 1996-11-08 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-10-23 (1990)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh; city town: Sectors 37-38-40-41 crossing; police station or unit: Punjab Armed Police (bus PIC-556, requisitioned for Chandigarh); PS Sector 39; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Punjab Armed Police (lodged FIR No. 207/1990, PS Sector 39) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Sectors 37-38-40-41 crossing man, age 21 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held Chandigarh Administration and Punjab jointly and severally liable for the 23 October 1990 police firing on anti-Mandal demonstrators at the Sectors 37-38 crossing, in which a 21-year-old driver was killed. The Court found no warning, unlawful-assembly declaration, lathi charge, tear gas or aerial fire had been shown, held straightway firing itself presumptive proof of the State's tortious act, and awarded the father 1,00,000 compensation within three months on strict public-law liability. The police claim of self-defence was rejected. ASI (Punjab Armed Police) led the party and lodged FIR No. 207/1990; no individual officer was held personally liable. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> To resort to straightway firing in itself is the presumptive proof of the torturous act committed by the State and its functionaries and under the garb of so-called right of self-defence, the life of an individual cannot be taken nor it can be permitted to be taken.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/128920/rattan-chand-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1366333/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Protest policing', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Rattan Chand v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-11-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2(1997) ACC 108', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/128920/rattan-chand-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1366333/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Straightway police firing on demonstrators without warning; death held tortious, Rs 1L.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1996-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0010)

## Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors vs \[name withheld\] (CW-1997-0003)

**Record:** CW-1997-0003 (compiler id CWC-0065); case SWEXTORT-011; aliases: CWC-0629
**Title:** Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors vs \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: B.P. Jeevan Reddy; Sujata V. Manohar
**Case number / citation:** (1997) 3 SCC 68; AIR 1997 SC 1201
**Judgment:** 1997-02-14 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-07-03 (1991)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh; city town: Chandigarh; police station or unit: Police Station North, Chandigarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 311(2)(b); Constitution Art 311(3)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector No. CHG/1, UT Police Chandigarh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chandigarh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. SI (No.CHG/1, PS North) picked up a Chandigarh man from his house around 11:45 pm on 3/4 July 1991 with two guests, detained and tortured him in the station on a baseless plea of harbouring terrorists, and demanded Rs.60,000 for release, accepting Rs.20,000. SP Intelligence Baldev Singh's inquiry of 5 July 1991 found the arrest baseless and aimed at extortion, noting the SI intimidated the complainant even in the SP's presence. SSP Chandigarh dismissed him under Article 311(2)(b) as inquiry was not reasonably practicable, and the IGP upheld it, but the CAT quashed the dismissal. The Supreme Court held the SSP justified in dispensing with inquiry, allowed the UT's appeal, and restored the dismissal.

> It is also reported that the other persons who were arrested with a Chandigarh man, and who were present there, immediately left his office terrified by the threats held out by the respondent. In such a situation - and keeping in view that all this was happening in the year 1991 in the State of Punjab - the Senior Superintendent of Police cannot be said to be not justified in holding that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against the respondent.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1573476/); [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1997/february/66.php); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/676917/union-territory-chandigarh-and-others-appellant-hash-mohinder-singh-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors vs \[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-02-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1997) 3 SCC 68; AIR 1997 SC 1201', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1573476/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1997/february/66.php', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/676917/union-territory-chandigarh-and-others-appellant-hash-mohinder-singh-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC restored Art.311(2)(b) dismissal of SI for illegal detention, torture and Rs.20,000 extortion.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1997-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0003)

## Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Ex. S.\[name withheld\] (CW-1998-0002)

**Record:** CW-1998-0002 (compiler id CWC-0064); case CHANDI-010
**Title:** Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Ex. S.\[name withheld\]
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. C. Agrawal; G. T. Nanavati
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 2498 of 1997 / (1998) 3 AWC 1838
**Judgment:** 1998-03-27 (1998, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-01-29 (1991)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh; city town: Chandigarh; police station or unit: UT Police Chandigarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; Constitution Art 311(2)(b); Constitution Art 311(3)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, UT Police Chandigarh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chandigarh woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of Chandigarh Sub-Inspector, caught red-handed in uniform on 29 January 1991 accepting a Rs 2,000 bribe at the complainant's residence for releasing gold ornaments and articles retained at the police station. The SSP had dismissed him under Article 311(2)(b) on a DSP's report that he was a terror in the area and witnesses would not depose freely, while a Section 7 PC Act case went to the CBI. Setting aside the Tribunal's reinstatement order, the Court held the dismissal justified, noting the Tribunal had ignored the finality clause in Article 311(3) and that criminal-trial witnesses had indeed turned hostile. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority was not justified in holding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/681808/chandigarh-administration-and-others-vs-exsi-gurdit-singh/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad0de4b0149711410628)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Ex. S.\[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1998-03-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1998) 3 AWC 1838', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/681808/chandigarh-administration-and-others-vs-exsi-gurdit-singh/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad0de4b0149711410628', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bribe-taking SI's Art 311(2)(b) dismissal restored by SC; verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1998-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1998-0002)

## Punjab Police Director General of Police vs State (Admn., U.T. Chandigarh) (CW-2005-0007)

**Record:** CW-2005-0007 (compiler id CWC-0335); case SWCUSTOD-008
**Title:** Punjab Police Director General of Police vs State (Admn., U.T. Chandigarh)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K.G. Balakrishnan; B.N. Srikrishna
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1032 of 1998 (with Crl.A. No. 430 of 1999) / (2005) 6 SCC 161; AIR 2005 SC 3104
**Judgment:** 2005-07-27 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-07-18 (1988)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh; city town: Chandigarh; police station or unit: Punjab Police (then DGP); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 354; IPC 509
**Officers (gated display forms):** Director General of Police, Punjab Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chandigarh woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court dismissed former Punjab DGP K.P.S. Gill's appeal (Crl. A. 1032/1998) and upheld his conviction under Sections 354 and 509 IPC for slapping the posterior of a woman senior IAS officer at a Chandigarh dinner party on 18 July 1988. The Sessions Judge had replaced the custodial sentence with release on probation and a Rs 50,000 fine (half to complainant), but the High Court in revision enhanced the fine to Rs 2,00,000 payable entirely to the prosecutrix plus Rs 25,000 costs — which the Supreme Court left undisturbed, noting the Rs 2 lakh lay in court deposit for disposal by the Punjab & Haryana CJ at the complainant's request (donation to a women's organisation). The Court also dismissed the complainant's appeal (Crl. A. 430/1999) seeking enhancement, noting Gill had completed probation without violation. The accused's conspiracy defence was recorded and rejected. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> we find no merit in the appeal preferred by the accused. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1292562/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Punjab Police Director General of Police vs State (Admn., U.T. Chandigarh)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2005) 6 SCC 161; AIR 2005 SC 3104', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2005-07-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2005) 6 SCC 161; AIR 2005 SC 3104', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1292562/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court dismissed Gill's appeal, upholding the ss.354/509 conviction (probation, Rs 50,000 fine); matches conviction_upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2005-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0007)

## Chandigarh Man v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) and Others (CW-2007-0012)

**Record:** CW-2007-0012 (compiler id CWC-0068); case CHANDI-014
**Title:** Chandigarh Man v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Uma Nath Singh; Rajive Bhalla
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Petition No. 11943 of 2007 / (2007) 10 P&H CK 0167
**Judgment:** 2007-10-09 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-07-11 (2007)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh; city town: Chandigarh; police station or unit: Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304; Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 227
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chandigarh man, age 21 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 9.9 lakh (Rs 9,95,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench partly allowed the writ of Phoolwati, mother of 21-year-old a Chandigarh man, who died in custody at PS Manimajra on 11 July 2007 after being taken to SI 's first-floor room and found fallen from a height. The Court accepted the SDM's magisterial enquiry finding the SI guilty of negligence and gross dereliction, noted D.K. Basu violations including no arrest memo or intimation, and awarded Rs 9.95 lakh compensation computed on multiplier principles, payable by the UT Administration within three months. It declined the CBI-transfer prayer as the Crime Branch probe, magisterial enquiry, post-mortem and CCTV record left little scope for further investigation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the instant case, a Magisterial enquiry was ordered after the incident and a SDM (an IAS officer) was assigned that job who on a detailed and thorough enquiry has found accused \[name withheld\]. 6 \[name withheld\] guilty of negligence and gross dereliction in performance of his duties by not making provision for guarding of the deceased during his stay in the Police Station between 12.57 noon to 3.00 PM on the date of the incident.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/174790/phoolwati-appellant-hash-state-union-territory-of-chandigarh-and-others-respondent-1/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b4948c607dba348f00d236)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Chandigarh Man v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-10-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 995,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2007) 10 P&H CK 0167', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/174790/phoolwati-appellant-hash-state-union-territory-of-chandigarh-and-others-respondent-1/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b4948c607dba348f00d236', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs 9.95L for Manimajra custodial death; agent IK link is the later bail order in same FIR, not this judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0012)

## UT Police Sub-Inspector v. C.B.I. (CW-2009-0006)

**Record:** CW-2009-0006 (compiler id CWC-0067); case CHANDI-013
**Title:** UT Police Sub-Inspector v. C.B.I.
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: K. C. Puri
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 915-SB of 2007 / (2009) 3 RCR (Criminal) 518
**Judgment:** 2009-05-25 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-08-03 (2005)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh; city town: Chandigarh; police station or unit: UT Police Chandigarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, UT Police Chandigarh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chandigarh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed SI 's appeal and confirmed his CBI-court conviction for demanding a bribe to release a motorcycle retained after a July 2005 road accident in Chandigarh. The demand of Rs 5,000, reduced to Rs 2,000, was proved by the shadow witness even though the complainant turned hostile, and the trap was upheld. The Court confirmed one year's rigorous imprisonment with Rs 5,000 fine each under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, concurrently, holding the sentence in no manner excessive. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the above discussion, no ground for interference is made out. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed being without any merit.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/119941/jaswant-singh-vs-cbi/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1253864/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** UT Police Sub-Inspector v. C.B.I.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2009) 3 RCR (Criminal) 518', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2009-05-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2009) 3 RCR (Criminal) 518', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/119941/jaswant-singh-vs-cbi/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1253864/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** PC Act trap conviction confirmed (1-yr RI); appeal dismissed, verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0006)

## Chandigarh Police Head Constable v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) (CW-2021-0021)

**Record:** CW-2021-0021 (compiler id CWC-0913); case GAP2-60-003
**Title:** Chandigarh Police Head Constable v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: N.V. Ramana; Surya Kant; A.S. Bopanna
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 2373 of 2010 / LL 2021 SC 687
**Judgment:** 2021-11-26 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-07-10 (1999)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh; city town: Chandigarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 307
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Chandigarh Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chandigarh resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 0.3 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. On 10 July 1999 Head Constable of Chandigarh Police entered an advocate residential office in an inebriated state, claimed to be the lane beat officer, then pointed his service pistol and threatened to kill. The Court recorded that the complainant pushed the barrel ceiling-ward so the fired shot hit the ceiling, a second attempt failed, and the appellant fled leaving his wireless set and scooter; medical examination the same evening found him under alcohol influence. The trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court convicted him under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act with 3 years RI. The Supreme Court held eyewitness and CFSL ballistic evidence proved attempt to murder, set aside the Arms Act conviction for want of a Section 5/7 misdemeanour, maintained the Section 307 conviction, and reduced sentence to the period already undergone (3 months 19 days). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> While the conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act is set aside, his conviction under Section 307 IPC is maintained.

**Sources (3):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/25593201031150131422judgement26-nov-2021-2-1277310.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/surinder-singh-v-state-union-territory-of-chandigarh-687-404947.pdf); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/61a70cac9fca196c63593f20)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 36
**display title redacted:** Chandigarh Police Head Constable v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'LL 2021 SC 687', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2021-11-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'LL 2021 SC 687', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/25593201031150131422judgement26-nov-2021-2-1277310.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/surinder-singh-v-state-union-territory-of-chandigarh-687-404947.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/61a70cac9fca196c63593f20', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC maintained Section 307 conviction of drunk head constable who fired service pistol; Arms Act charge set aside.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2021-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0021)

## UT Police Constable vs Union of India and Others (CW-2023-0030)

**Record:** CW-2023-0030 (compiler id CWC-0060); case CHANDI-006
**Title:** UT Police Constable vs Union of India and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Deepak Sibal; Sukhvinder Kaur
**Case number / citation:** CWP-37381-2018 / 2023:PHHC:137380-DB
**Judgment:** 2023-10-19 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-07-25 (2012)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh; city town: Chandigarh; police station or unit: Night patrolling, Sector-20/Aroma Light Point; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, UT Police Chandigarh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chandigarh woman; Chandigarh man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** fine
**Sentence type:** fine (fine)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court (Sukhvinder Kaur, J., Deepak Sibal, J. concurring) dismissed the writ of Chandigarh Police constable, upholding the stoppage of 10 annual increments with permanent effect (reduced by the DIG from 15). On the intervening night of 25/26 July 2012, Kumar and fellow patrol constable stopped and harassed a couple near Aroma Light Point, Sector-20, and took Rs. 300 illegal gratification, later returned to the complainant's friend. No criminal Prevention of Corruption Act prosecution was involved; culpability is departmental only, concurrently confirmed by the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities, the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, which held the penalty not excessive. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It has also been rightly observed by the Tribunal that a perusal of the allegations proved and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner will show, that the same is not excessive and it cannot be said that it pricks the conscience of a prudent man, considering the fact that a protector of law chose to violate the law himself, by demanding illegal gratification and causing harassment.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103983903/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-upholds-punishment-stopping-fifteen-annual-increment-constable-takes-rs-300-bribe-241323); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/pardeep-kumar-v-union-of-india-and-otherswatermark-1556597.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** UT Police Constable vs Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-10-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2023:PHHC:137380-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103983903/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-upholds-punishment-stopping-fifteen-annual-increment-constable-takes-rs-300-bribe-241323', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/pardeep-kumar-v-union-of-india-and-otherswatermark-1556597.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: Rs 300 bribe, increment-stoppage penalty upheld; departmental only, no PC Act trial.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0030)

## Chandigarh Man vs State Of Ut Chandigarh And Others (CW-2025-0078)

**Record:** CW-2025-0078 (compiler id CWC-1383); case cop-ch-hc-0
**Title:** Chandigarh Man vs State Of Ut Chandigarh And Others
**Court:** High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; judges: \[name withheld\]
**Case number / citation:** CRM-M No. 36362 of 2025
**Judgment:** 2025-07-16 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-03-13 (2025)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh; police station or unit: Special Investigation Team, Chandigarh Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Section 109, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police (SIT in-charge), Chandigarh Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chandigarh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court held that there are no prospects of a free and fair investigation of the assault case by the Investigating Agency of UT, Chandigarh. The Court found that the Chandigarh Police SIT was proceeding in a tainted manner to give benefit to the accused serving police officials and was trying to create loopholes in the investigation. The Court noted that the SIT called the accused untraceable though all were serving police officials and had already made up its mind to delete the attempt-to-murder charge. The Court withdrew the investigation from UT, Chandigarh with immediate effect and handed it to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Supreme Court later dismissed the accused officers' petition challenging the transfer, leaving the High Court's order intact.

> there are no prospects of free and fair investigation in the case

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60554382/); [theprint.in](https://theprint.in/judiciary/sit-making-craters-in-probe-hcs-earful-to-chandigarh-police-in-colonel-bath-assault-case/2692785/); [theprint.in](https://theprint.in/india/colonel-assault-3-months-ago-chandigarh-sit-was-handed-case-for-fair-probe-now-accused-cops-untraceable/2693325/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/army-officer-assault-punjab-and-haryana-hc-says-chandigarh-police-probe-tainted-transfers-case-to-cbi)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** quoted in report of judgment
**display title redacted:** Chandigarh Man vs State Of Ut Chandigarh And Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-07-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'CRM-M No. 36362 of 2025', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60554382/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://theprint.in/judiciary/sit-making-craters-in-probe-hcs-earful-to-chandigarh-police-in-colonel-bath-assault-case/2692785/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://theprint.in/india/colonel-assault-3-months-ago-chandigarh-sit-was-handed-case-for-fair-probe-now-accused-cops-untraceable/2693325/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/army-officer-assault-punjab-and-haryana-hc-says-chandigarh-police-probe-tainted-transfers-case-to-cbi', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60554382/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary source URL is invalid: indiankanoon.org/doc/136695872/ returns 'Invalid input: digits only' (no such document). All other case facts verified via ThePrint (2692785, 2693325), Bar and Bench (headline confirms tainted-probe/CBI-transfer), and a valid Indian Kanoon Supreme Court order (doc 60554382, SLP Diary No. 41450/2025) which confirms CRM-M No. 36362/2025, HC order dated 16-07-2025, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the accused police officers' SLP on 04-08-2025.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2025-0078](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0078)

## Pulgaon Police Sub-Inspector (Officer-in-charge) v. State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-1995-0005)

**Record:** CW-1995-0005 (compiler id CWC-0442); case SWBRIBER-015
**Title:** Pulgaon Police Sub-Inspector (Officer-in-charge) v. State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. Jayachandra Reddy; M.M. Punchhi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 571 of 1991 / 1995 SCC (5) 320; AIR 1995 SC 2121
**Judgment:** 1995-07-12 (1995, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1979-11-12 (1979)
**Place:** Durg, Chhattisgarh; city town: Pulgaon; police station or unit: Pulgaon Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Officer-in-charge), Pulgaon Police Station, Durg (1 in record)
**Victims:** Pulgaon man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of Sub-Inspector, officer-in-charge of Pulgaon police station, for obtaining illegal gratification of Rs.500 from complainant \[name withheld\], who had come to report his wife's disappearance and was detained until he paid. The Court held that both the trial court and the High Court had rightly found the case proved beyond reasonable doubt through corroborated trap evidence. It reduced the one year's rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone but maintained the Rs.1,000 fine with the default clause. The trial court's acquittal under Section 161 IPC was left undisturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Applying the above ratio to the facts of this case we hold that both the courts have rightly held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/907234/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Pulgaon Police Sub-Inspector (Officer-in-charge) v. State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1995 SCC (5) 320; AIR 1995 SC 2121', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1995-07-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '1995 SCC (5) 320; AIR 1995 SC 2121', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/907234/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment text verified; police SI conviction under PC Act 1947 confirmed, sentence cut to undergone.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1995-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1995-0005)

## Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector vs State of M.P. and Others (CW-1996-0017)

**Record:** CW-1996-0017 (compiler id CWC-1096); case GAP3-127-004
**Title:** Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector vs State of M.P. and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. Ramaswamy; G. B. Pattanaik
**Case number / citation:** \[1996\] INSC 1409
**Judgment:** 1996-11-06 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kanker, Chhattisgarh (district at time: Bastar); city town: Pakhanjur; police station or unit: Police Station Pakhanjur; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Pakhanjur, Madhya Pradesh Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 6 November 1996 sustained the 1971 dismissal of Sub-Inspector, formerly in charge of Pakhanjur police station in what is now Chhattisgarh. The Court recorded that while SHO he received illegal gratification from gambling organiser N.K. Ghosh and failed to prevent his common gambling house, a charge proved in the departmental enquiry and confirmed on departmental appeal and by the M.P. High Court in 1978. It held the preliminary enquiry report need not have been supplied since it never formed the basis of dismissal, and that Evidence Act strictures do not govern departmental enquiries. The appeal, pursued by his legal representatives, was dismissed with no costs.

> The appellant, while working as Sub-Inspector, and being in-charge of the Police Station Pakhanjur, District Jagadalpur, on receipt of illegal gratification failed to prevent the running of common gambling house of one N.K.Ghosh.

**Sources (2):** [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1996/november/vijay-kumar-nigam-vs-state-of-m-op-ors-40); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1888519/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector vs State of M.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-11-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '\[1996\] INSC 1409', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1996/november/vijay-kumar-nigam-vs-state-of-m-op-ors-40', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1888519/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC sustained dismissal of SHO for taking gratification to shelter a gambling den.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1996-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0017)

## Lakhanpur Man v. State of M.P. and Others (CW-1997-0018)

**Record:** CW-1997-0018 (compiler id CWC-1241); case GAP3-73-002
**Title:** Lakhanpur Man v. State of M.P. and Others
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: A.K. Mathur; Dipak Misra
**Case number / citation:** Miscellaneous Petition No. 1808 of 1994 / (1998) 2 JLJ 86
**Judgment:** 1997-10-06 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-01-08 (1994)
**Place:** Surguja, Chhattisgarh; city town: Lakhanpur; police station or unit: Police Station Lakhanpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Lakhanpur; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Lakhanpur; Constable, Police Station Lakhanpur (3 in record)
**Victims:** Lakhanpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) allowed a habeas corpus petition by Jagatdhari for his son-in-law a Lakhanpur man, taken in a police jeep to Police Station Lakhanpur on 8 January 1994 and never seen alive since (Ambikapur is now in Chhattisgarh). The Court noted the SP's admission of no Rojnamcha entry, the AIG report holding the Lakhanpur action illegal, and the District Judge's enquiry finding a Lakhanpur man never found alive. It held the State responsible for the illegal detention, awarded Rs 50,000 compensation to a Lakhanpur man's wife \[name withheld\], and ordered a departmental enquiry against the Lakhanpur officials posted at the relevant time. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In these circumstances, we direct a sum of Rs. 50,000/- should be given to wife of a Lakhanpur man as a compensation and the State Government shall initiate a departmental enquiry against the concerned officials who were posted there at the relevant time as they had illegally detained a Lakhanpur man at Police Station Lakhanpur.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/576712/jagatdhari-vs-state-of-mp-and-others/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=417991785000&title=jagatdhari-vs-state-of-m-p)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Lakhanpur Man v. State of M.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-10-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1998) 2 JLJ 86', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/576712/jagatdhari-vs-state-of-mp-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=417991785000&title=jagatdhari-vs-state-of-m-p', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held State liable for illegal detention/disappearance; Rs 50,000 compensation + enquiry ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0018)

## Bilaspur Man v. State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2001-0001)

**Record:** CW-2001-0001 (compiler id CWC-0088); case CHHATT-018
**Title:** Bilaspur Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: R. S. Garg
**Case number / citation:** Cri. M.P. under Section 482 CrPC (Criminal Case No. 3567/2000; Crime No. 12/2000, PS Torwa) / 2001(3) MPHT 93 (CG)
**Judgment:** 2001-03-12 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-06-22 (2000)
**Place:** Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh; city town: Bilaspur; police station or unit: Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 41(1)(d); IPC 379
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (No. 861), Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bilaspur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. Justice R.S. Garg quashed the prosecution of a Bilaspur man (Crime No. 12/2000, PS Torwa) launched on an anonymous inland letter alleging rickshaw-pullers possessed Rs 5 lakh of found money. Head Constable raided on 22 June 2000, seized Rs 8,000, extracted a custodial admission that it was bad money, locked up the accused and filed a challan under Section 41(1)(d) CrPC/379 IPC though no complaint of lost or stolen property existed. Holding the arrest false, mischievous and illegal and the challan cooked-up, the Court ordered the constable to personally pay Rs 10,000 compensation, return the seized money, and directed the CJM to lodge a criminal complaint against him. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Mr. \[name withheld\], Head Constable, shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the present applicant as compensation for false/mischievous/illegal arrest and filing cooked-up and manufactured challan.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1862739/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/897896/sheoprasad-appellant-hash-state-of-chhattisgarh-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 31
**display title redacted:** Bilaspur Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-03-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2001(3) MPHT 93 (CG)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1862739/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/897896/sheoprasad-appellant-hash-state-of-chhattisgarh-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Cooked-up challan quashed; constable to personally pay Rs 10,000 and face criminal complaint.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2001-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0001)

## Suhela, Village Bhalesur Man vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors (CW-2006-0006)

**Record:** CW-2006-0006 (compiler id CWC-0071); case CHHATT-001
**Title:** Suhela, Village Bhalesur Man vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: S.R. Nayak; D.R. Deshmukh
**Case number / citation:** 2006 CriLJ 4372; 2006(3) MPHT 79
**Judgment:** 2006-07-20 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-08-12 (2004)
**Place:** Raipur, Chhattisgarh; city town: Suhela, village Bhalesur; police station or unit: Police Station Suhela; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, PS Suhela, Raipur; Sub-Inspector, PS Suhela, Raipur; Assistant Sub-Inspector, PS Suhela, Raipur; Constable (No. 417), PS Suhela, Raipur; Constable (No. 243), PS Suhela, Raipur; Head Constable (No. 1337), PS Suhela, Raipur (6 in record)
**Victims:** Suhela, village Bhalesur man, age 26 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench) allowed a public interest writ highlighting the custodial death of a Suhela, village Bhalesur man, a 26-year-old tribal agricultural labourer, at Police Station Suhela. Picked up on suspicion of petty theft of goods worth Rs. 972, he was illegally detained without arrest being recorded, mercilessly beaten by ASI and other staff, paraded handcuffed through villages on August 11, 2004, and found dead in the lock-up toilet on August 13, 2004 in a staged hanging the Court disbelieved, with a false autopsy prepared at the ASI's behest. Holding the State liable in public law, the Court directed payment of Rs. 10,00,000 compensation to the widow and three minor children within a month (sums already paid adjusted), ordered the CBI to register a case and investigate, and directed departmental enquiries against the six named police personnel. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We direct the State of Chhattisgarh to pay to the widow of the deceased and their three minor children compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) within a month.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1455919/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/896348/forum-for-fact-finding-documentation-and-advocacy-vs-state-o/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 28(c)
**display title redacted:** Suhela, Village Bhalesur Man vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-07-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2006 CriLJ 4372; 2006(3) MPHT 79', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1455919/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/896348/forum-for-fact-finding-documentation-and-advocacy-vs-state-o/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Chhattisgarh HC (PIL) held tribal man a Suhela, village Bhalesur man died of custodial torture at PS Suhela, awarded Rs. 10 lakh compensation and ordered CBI probe.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0006)

## Raipura Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (CW-2011-0005)

**Record:** CW-2011-0005 (compiler id CWC-0082); case CHHATT-012
**Title:** Raipura Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 1427 of 2004
**Judgment:** 2011-03-30 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-10-21 (1997)
**Place:** Sakti, Chhattisgarh (district at time: Bilaspur); city town: Raipura; police station or unit: PS Baradwar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304-A; IPC 34; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 32
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, PS Baradwar; Police personnel, PS Baradwar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Raipura man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Raipura man, arrested on suspicion of theft, was taken handcuffed and chained by two PS Baradwar police officials to Kumhiya pond at village Raipura to recover a concealed brass vessel and compelled to dive in; he drowned and his body was found floating on 21 October 1997. The court found sheer negligence and callous, high-handed custodial action, noting that respondent No 3 stood convicted under Section 304-A IPC by the trial court in 2008 while respondent No 4 was acquitted. Following Nilabati Behera, the court allowed the Article 226 petition and awarded Rs 1.5 lakh compensation to the father, Dukhuram, leaving him free to pursue traditional remedies for any balance. The incident predates the creation of Janjgir-Champa (1998), Sakti (2022) and Chhattisgarh state (2000). Respondent No. 4, who is not named in the judgment, was acquitted of the charges by the trial court on 18 February 2008 while respondent No. 3 was held guilty under Section 304A IPC; no culpability finding in this judgment runs against respondent No. 4. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The judgment of the Trial Court clearly shows that the deceased-a Raipura man died due to negligent act of respondent No. 3.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16668791/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/895876/dukhuram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Raipura Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-03-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 1427 of 2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16668791/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/895876/dukhuram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** WP 1427/2004 verified on Indian Kanoon; Rs 1.5L compensation; R3 convicted u/s 304-A by trial court.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0005)

## Janjgir Man and Another v. State of C.G. (CW-2012-0004)

**Record:** CW-2012-0004 (compiler id CWC-0090); case CHHATT-020
**Title:** Janjgir Man and Another v. State of C.G.
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Satish K. Agnihotri
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 888 of 2001 / (2012) 02 CHH CK 0077
**Judgment:** 2012-02-15 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-09-11 (1999)
**Place:** Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh; city town: Janjgir; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel; Police personnel (2 in record)
**Victims:** Janjgir man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Chhattisgarh High Court awarded Rs 1.5 lakh additional compensation to Motimbai and her child for the custodial death of Chhotelal Soni, forcibly taken by respondent No. 6 from Balco to Janjgir-Champa on 11 September 1999 and beaten brutally in transit custody, dying the same day. The State Human Rights Commission had already found custodial death, awarded Rs 50,000 recoverable from respondents 5 and 6, and recommended their suspension and enquiry, in which they were punished. Following Nilabati Behera and related precedents, the Court held the police deprived the deceased of personal liberty and allowed the petition with liberty to claim more in private law. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Commission within a period of three months.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/898431/motimbai-and-another-appellant-hash-state-of-cg-and-others-respondent/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608fd97e4b014971114e816)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Janjgir Man and Another v. State of C.G.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-02-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2012) 02 CHH CK 0077', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/898431/motimbai-and-another-appellant-hash-state-of-cg-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608fd97e4b014971114e816', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Transit-custody beating death; Rs 1.5L additional over SHRC award, erring officers already punished.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0004)

## Pondi Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (CW-2012-0012)

**Record:** CW-2012-0012 (compiler id CWC-0089); case CHHATT-019
**Title:** Pondi Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Dipak Misra; K. S. Radhakrishnan
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 5703 of 2012 / (2012) 8 SCC 1; AIR 2012 SC 2573
**Judgment:** 2012-08-03 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-09-24 (1992)
**Place:** Koriya, Chhattisgarh (district at time: Surguja); city town: Pondi; police station or unit: Pondi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 32
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Pondi Police Station; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Pondi Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Pondi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, an Ayurvedic doctor taken to Pondi Police Station on 24 September 1992 instead of Baikunthpur Jail, was abused, assaulted and photographed holding a self-humiliating placard that the police then circulated. The Court found, as the High Court had, that he suffered physical and mental torture in custody in violation of Article 21. It set aside the High Court direction requiring a fresh representation after 19 years and awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation. The Court directed payment within six weeks, recoverable from the erring officers in equal shares from their salaries. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A sum of Rs.5.00 lacs (Rupees five lacs only) should be granted towards compensation to the appellant.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/24661153/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 46
**display title redacted:** Pondi Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-08-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2012) 8 SCC 1; AIR 2012 SC 2573', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/24661153/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC held custodial torture proved; Rs 5 lakh compensation recoverable from officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0012)

## State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) vs Manpur Police Constable and others (CW-2012-0013)

**Record:** CW-2012-0013 (compiler id CWC-0085); case CHHATT-015
**Title:** State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) vs Manpur Police Constable and others
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre; G. Minhajuddin
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal Nos. 342-345 and 358 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2012-08-14 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-12-11 (1992)
**Place:** Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh (district at time: Rajnandgaon); city town: Manpur; police station or unit: PS Manpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, PS Manpur; Constable/Head Constable, PS Manpur; Constable/Head Constable, PS Manpur; Constable/Head Constable, PS Manpur; Town Inspector, PS Manpur (5 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Chhattisgarh High Court Division Bench (Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.) allowed the State's writ appeals and upheld the 30 September 1993 dismissal of five PS Manpur police personnel — two constables, two head constables and the Town Inspector. Three major misconducts in discharge of official duties, including misappropriation of money found on gamblers caught on the night of 11/12 December 1992, were held proved in a regular departmental inquiry. The Court set aside the Single Judge's 4 April 2011 reinstatement order, holding the inquiry findings were serious, proved in accordance with law, and earlier concurrently upheld by the State Administrative Tribunal in 1997. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The dismissal order of the respondent from the services deserves to be upheld and is accordingly upheld.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106352477/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608fd97e4b014971114e7f9)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 42
**display title redacted:** State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) vs Manpur Police Constable and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-08-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Appeal Nos. 342-345 and 358 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106352477/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608fd97e4b014971114e7f9', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: dismissal of 5 PS Manpur personnel for proved major misconducts upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0013)

## Bilaspur Man v. State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2013-0005)

**Record:** CW-2013-0005 (compiler id CWC-0091); case CHHATT-021
**Title:** Bilaspur Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Satish K. Agnihotri
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (C) No. 5268 of 2007
**Judgment:** 2013-04-10 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-01-01 (2005)
**Place:** Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh; city town: Bilaspur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Arms Act s.25
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel; Police personnel (2 in record)
**Victims:** Bilaspur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Chhattisgarh High Court awarded Rs 2 lakh to Ganeshi Bai for the death of her husband \[name withheld\] in police custody. Arrested in Crime No. 206/2005 under Section 25 of the Arms Act and being escorted to Central Jail Bilaspur by respondents 3 and 4, he died en route; police claimed he tried to escape and was hit by an untraced truck, while the widow alleged assault. The Court held it indisputable that a Bilaspur man died in police custody and that his personal liberty was deprived by the police. It allowed the petition, directing payment within three months with liberty to claim more in private law. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The respondent/State is directed to pay the said amount to the petitioner within a period of three months.

**Sources (1):** [indianemployees.com](https://www.indianemployees.com/uploads/judgments/082015/1439808645-10ap13.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Bilaspur Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-04-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Writ Petition (C) No. 5268 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.indianemployees.com/uploads/judgments/082015/1439808645-10ap13.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Escort-custody death with untraced-truck cover story rejected; Rs 2L compensation allowed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0005)

## Jagdalpur Police Constable (No. 636) vs State of M.P. and Others (CW-2013-0033)

**Record:** CW-2013-0033 (compiler id CWC-1253); case GAP3-77-002
**Title:** Jagdalpur Police Constable (No. 636) vs State of M.P. and Others
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Pritinker Diwaker
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. (S) 1082 of 2005 / (2014) LabIC 693; (2013) 09 CHH CK 0017
**Judgment:** 2013-09-16 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-10-22 (1993)
**Place:** Bastar, Chhattisgarh; city town: Jagdalpur; police station or unit: 30th Battalion, Special Armed Force, Jagdalpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302/34 (tried; acquitted 30-11-1994); Police Regulations Regulation 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (No. 636), 30th Battalion, SAF, Jagdalpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jagdalpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. SAF Constable (No. 636, 30th Battalion, Jagdalpur) was suspended after he allegedly left his duty post with others on the night of 21/22 October 1993, consumed liquor outside the police lines, and was then prosecuted for the murder of Head Constable. Though he was acquitted of murder on 30 November 1994, a departmental enquiry found grave indiscipline proved and he was dismissed from service on 10 December 1994, affirmed on departmental appeal on 21 February 1995. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that acquittal in the criminal trial does not bar departmental proceedings on the distinct question of conduct, and that leaving duty premises and consuming liquor while on duty in a disciplined force is grave misconduct warranting dismissal under Regulation 226. The Court found no illegality in the penalty or the appellate order and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> If on that count the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose the penalty of dismissal from service, this Court does not find violation of provision contained in Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/896474/photkooram-vs-state-of-mp-and-others/); (2014) LabIC 693
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** Jagdalpur Police Constable (No. 636) vs State of M.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-09-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2014) LabIC 693; (2013) 09 CHH CK 0017', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/896474/photkooram-vs-state-of-mp-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2014) LabIC 693', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** CG HC dismissed writ and upheld SAF constable's dismissal for leaving duty post and consuming liquor; murder acquittal held no bar to departmental action.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0033)

## Chhattisgarh Police Police Constable vs State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) (CW-2014-0033)

**Record:** CW-2014-0033 (compiler id CWC-1258); case GAP3-77-007
**Title:** Chhattisgarh Police Police Constable vs State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh)
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Navin Sinha
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 194 of 2005 / (2015) LabIC 1428; (2014) 11 CHH CK 0050
**Judgment:** 2014-11-11 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-10-21 (1988)
**Place:** Chhattisgarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. Police Constable was served a three-charge memo on 3 April 1989 alleging 75 days of unauthorized absence from 21 October 1988 to 4 January 1989, uncultured language toward the department, and incorrigibility despite earlier punishments. He never participated in the departmental enquiry, which proceeded ex parte on five witnesses and eight documents and found charges 1 and 3 proved, leading to dismissal on 9 September 1989. He contended that regularization of the absence period against unearned leave wiped out the charge. The Chhattisgarh High Court held the regularization order merely adjusted leave and did not recall the dismissal, that the punishment was severably sustainable on charges 1 and 3, and that discipline in a uniformed service should not be lightly interfered with, dismissing the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Discipline is the hallmark of an uniformed service. While a long period of absence for a civilian post may not have as serious consequence as a single day's absence can have for a uniformed force.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/899539/ravi-kumar-shrivastava-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-chhat/); (2015) LabIC 1428
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Chhattisgarh Police Police Constable vs State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-11-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2015) LabIC 1428; (2014) 11 CHH CK 0050', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/899539/ravi-kumar-shrivastava-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-chhat/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2015) LabIC 1428', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** CG HC sustained dismissal of police constable for 75 days unauthorized absence and incorrigibility; purely internal-discipline matter with no citizen victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0033)

## Rajnandgaon Police Constable v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (CW-2016-0024)

**Record:** CW-2016-0024 (compiler id CWC-0820); case GAP2-35-001
**Title:** Rajnandgaon Police Constable v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Prashant Kumar Mishra
**Case number / citation:** WP No. 4080 of 2004 / (2016) 2 CLR 800; (2016) 150 FLR 265; (2016) LIC 2506
**Judgment:** 2016-04-18 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-09-21 (2002)
**Place:** Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh; police station or unit: District Force, Rajnandgaon; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 376 (acquitted in ST No. 169/2002); CG Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965 r.3
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, District Force, Rajnandgaon (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rajnandgaon woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

On 18 April 2016 the Chhattisgarh High Court (Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.) dismissed the writ petition of Constable of the District Force, Rajnandgaon, upholding his dismissal from service. The 2003 charge sheet alleged 43 days of unauthorised absence (21 September to 4 November 2002), an indecent act with a woman complainant tarnishing the force's image, and incorrigibility despite 12 prior punishments. The court held the indecent-behaviour charge was proved on the prosecutrix's independent deposition in the departmental enquiry and therefore unaffected by his acquittal under Section 376 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 169/2002, and that prolonged absence after release on bail was serious misconduct for a member of a disciplined force. A Division Bench dismissed his writ appeal in 2019 (WPC No. 2638/2019). No compensation was in issue. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The disciplinary authority i.e. SP, Rajnandgaon concurred with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and imposed punishment of dismissal from service.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163312776/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/899820/manoj-sharma-vs-the-state-of-cg-and-others/); [highcourt.cg.gov.in](https://highcourt.cg.gov.in/Afr/courtJudgementandAFR/2016/April/wp4080of2004.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** Rajnandgaon Police Constable v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-04-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2016) 2 CLR 800; (2016) 150 FLR 265; (2016) LIC 2506', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163312776/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/899820/manoj-sharma-vs-the-state-of-cg-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://highcourt.cg.gov.in/Afr/courtJudgementandAFR/2016/April/wp4080of2004.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified via mirror + official HC PDF index; dismissal on all charges upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0024)

## Takhatpur Police Head Constable and others v. State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2016-0007)

**Record:** CW-2016-0007 (compiler id CWC-0084); case CHHATT-014
**Title:** Takhatpur Police Head Constable and others v. State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Deepak Gupta; P. Sam Koshy
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeals No. 1080, 1082, 1136 and 1147 of 2001
**Judgment:** 2016-09-28 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-01-06 (1992)
**Place:** Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh; city town: Takhatpur; police station or unit: PS Takhatpur, Bilaspur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34; IPC 331
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, PS Takhatpur, Bilaspur; Constable, PS Takhatpur, Bilaspur (2 in record)
**Victims:** Takhatpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 10 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. A Takhatpur man, a labourer suspected of theft at his employer's house, was taken by PS Takhatpur police from his village on 5/6 January 1992 and beaten with lathis through the night at a school building in Bandha for 14-15 hours; he died en route to hospital. The trial court convicted two policemen and two civilians for murder. The Division Bench sustained the conviction but altered it from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II/34 IPC with ten years' rigorous imprisonment each, upheld the Section 331 IPC conviction for grievous hurt to extort confession, and set aside Section 149. The court relied on D.K. Basu in condemning the custodial torture; the incident predates Chhattisgarh's formation, when the area was in Madhya Pradesh. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We are dealing with a case where protectors and enforcers of law have taken the law into their own hands and they alongwith complainant party have beaten a tribal to death only on the suspicion of theft of some money.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99856664/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Takhatpur Police Head Constable and others v. State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeals No. 1080, 1082, 1136 and 1147 of 2001', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2016-09-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeals No. 1080, 1082, 1136 and 1147 of 2001', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99856664/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** 4 criminal appeals verified on Indian Kanoon; 302 to 304-II (10 yr RI), s.331 upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0007)

## Chhattisgarh Police Constable v. State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2019-0034)

**Record:** CW-2019-0034 (compiler id CWC-0920); case CHHATT-003
**Title:** Chhattisgarh Police Constable v. State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon; Parth Prateem Sahu
**Case number / citation:** WA No. 412 of 2016 / (2019) 08 CHH CK 0011
**Judgment:** 2019-08-01 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-09-21 (2002)
**Place:** Chhattisgarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Chhattisgarh Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1966 r.14(6)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chhattisgarh woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Division Bench dismissed police constable 's writ appeal against the Single Judge's order dated 18 April 2016, upholding his dismissal from service ordered on 11 March 2003. The court held all three departmental charges proved: 43 days of unauthorised absence, misbehaviour with a victim woman, and incorrigible conduct despite earlier punishments. It rejected his technical pleas about the enquiry procedure, finding no prejudice, and held that his acquittal in the related criminal case did not undo the departmental finding. The court found no illegality in the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal as sans merit.

> For the foregoing discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118251262/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1055613/manoj-sharma-appellant-hash-state-of-chhattisgarh-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=509102120200&title=manoj-sharma-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Chhattisgarh Police Constable v. State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-08-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2019) 08 CHH CK 0011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118251262/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1055613/manoj-sharma-appellant-hash-state-of-chhattisgarh-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=509102120200&title=manoj-sharma-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB dismissed constable's writ appeal; dismissal from service upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0034)

## District Police Ex-Constable No. 598 vs State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2020-0016)

**Record:** CW-2020-0016 (compiler id CWC-1265); case GAP3-79-004
**Title:** District Police Ex-Constable No. 598 vs State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon; Parth Prateem Sahu
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal No. 57 of 2020
**Judgment:** 2020-01-21 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kanker, Chhattisgarh (district at time: Uttar Bastar Kanker); police station or unit: District Police, Uttar Bastar Kanker; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ex-Constable No. 598, District Police, Uttar Bastar Kanker (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. Constable applied to add his second wife and minor child as nominees in his service record, admitting he contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of the first without prior government permission. A charge-sheet issued under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965, the enquiry found misconduct under Rule 22(1), and he was removed from service; the appeal, mercy appeal and writ petition all failed. The Division Bench held Rule 22(1) categorically requires prior permission, and the first wife's consent and voluntary disclosure do not lessen the gravity given the greater responsibility on uniformed personnel. It found the punishment not disproportionate and dismissed the writ appeal.

> The writ appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/wa5720210120watermark-1586475.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** District Police Ex-Constable No. 598 vs State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-01-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Appeal No. 57 of 2020', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/wa5720210120watermark-1586475.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Removal for second marriage without government permission upheld in writ appeal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2020-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0016)

## Minpa Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (CW-2023-0018)

**Record:** CW-2023-0018 (compiler id CWC-0596); case SWILLEGA-014; aliases: CWC-0922
**Title:** Minpa Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Ramesh Sinha; Rajani Dubey
**Case number / citation:** WPCR No. 579 of 2022
**Judgment:** 2023-07-14 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2021-07-01 (2021)
**Place:** Sukma, Chhattisgarh; city town: Minpa; police station or unit: Police Station Chintagupha; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Chintagupha, Sukma; Station House Officer, Police Station Chintagupha, Sukma (2 in record)
**Victims:** Minpa man, age 30 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. A Minpa man (about 30), of Minpa village under PS Chintagupha, Sukma, was arrested on a wrong identity, sharing his name with a wanted accused, though not wanted in any criminal case, and spent 7 months 26 days in Dantewada jail. The Additional Sessions Judge, Dantewada released him on 3 March 2022, finding the detention illegal and directing SP action against the erring personnel. Before the High Court the State admitted the illegal detention. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rajani Dubey directed the State to pay Rs.1,00,000 compensation within two months, noting ASI had died during the departmental enquiry. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Taking into consideration the great harm done to the petitioner by the State authorities, he has to remain in jail for a period of about 8 months whereas he was not wanted in any criminal case and was arrested on a wrong identity and he was released by the learned Additional Session Judge vide order dated 03.03.2022 who has observed in the order about the careless act of the erring police officers and directed the SP concerned to take action against the police personnel concerned, we are of the opinion that State has to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner for illegal detention within a period of two months.

**Sources (6):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/wpcr579221407232-1528923.pdf); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/chhattisgarh-high-court-1-lakh-compensation-man-wrongfully-jailed-same-name-accused); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/chhattisgarh-hc-orders-state-to-pay-rs-100000-compensation-for-wrongful-detention-1488464); [images.assettype.com](https://images.assettype.com/barandbench-hindi/2023-08/d851f102-d92e-4fb4-8d1c-dd8e2ca84e40/Podiyaami_Bhima_v_State___Ors.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181475259/); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/amp/court-updates/high-courts/chhattisgarh-hc-orders-state-to-pay-rs-100000-compensation-for-wrongful-detention-1488464)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Minpa Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Audit fix: duplicate record CW-2023-0046 (same court, case number and judgment date) merged into this record; its sources are kept here and its URL redirects here.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-07-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'WPCR No. 579 of 2022', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-25
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/wpcr579221407232-1528923.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/chhattisgarh-high-court-1-lakh-compensation-man-wrongfully-jailed-same-name-accused', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/chhattisgarh-hc-orders-state-to-pay-rs-100000-compensation-for-wrongful-detention-1488464', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** CG HC awarded Rs.1L for ~8-month wrong-identity detention; order text verified, State admission recorded.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0018)

## Bilaspur Woman and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2024-0003)

**Record:** CW-2024-0003 (compiler id CWC-0087); case CHHATT-017; aliases: CWC-1441
**Title:** Bilaspur Woman and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Ramesh Sinha; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
**Case number / citation:** WPCR No. 399 of 2023 / 2024:CGHC:10103-DB; 2024 LiveLaw (Chh) 12
**Judgment:** 2024-03-19 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2023-09-16 (2023)
**Place:** Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh; city town: Bilaspur; police station or unit: Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 151; CrPC 107; CrPC 116(3)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Officers including SHO, Civil Line Police Station, Bilaspur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bilaspur woman, age 55; Bilaspur woman, age 26 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. Rewrite: attribute home-arrest/no-grounds claims to petitioners (paras 3-4), add State version (paras 12-13: spot arrest 3:30pm, son intimated), state violation as s.107(1) show-cause failure (para 23). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The above facts clearly reveal that the right of life and liberty of the petitioners enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get appropriate compensation.

**Sources (3):** [lawtrend.in](https://lawtrend.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/WPCR399_2319.03.24_6.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/chattisgarh-high-court/chhattisgarh-high-court-3-lakh-compensation-mother-daughter-illegal-arrest-30-hour-detention-255722); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/anju-lal-and-another-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-and-others-chhattisgarh-high-court-535228.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Bilaspur Woman and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['sections', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-03-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2024:CGHC:10103-DB; 2024 LiveLaw (Chh) 12', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://lawtrend.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/WPCR399_2319.03.24_6.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/chattisgarh-high-court/chhattisgarh-high-court-3-lakh-compensation-mother-daughter-illegal-arrest-30-hour-detention-255722', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/anju-lal-and-another-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-and-others-chhattisgarh-high-court-535228.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Illegal arrest and 30-hour detention of mother-daughter; Rs 3L total compensation allowed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0003)

## Chindali Man v. State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2024-0040)

**Record:** CW-2024-0040 (compiler id CWC-0921); case CHHATT-005
**Title:** Chindali Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Ramesh Sinha; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
**Case number / citation:** WPCR No. 322 of 2023
**Judgment:** 2024-07-16 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2023-01-07 (2023)
**Place:** Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh; city town: Chindali; police station or unit: PS Bade Dongar, Kondagaon; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 151; CrPC 107; CrPC 116(3)
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, PS Bade Dongar, Kondagaon (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chindali man, age 45 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. Replace bond sentence with: 'without the prior show-cause required by s.107(1) CrPC (para 15)'; add State contention (para 7: arrest on suspicion, bond default, denial of illegality). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We deem it fit to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner, and same shall be payable by the State Government to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37245818/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Chindali Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-07-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'WPCR No. 322 of 2023', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37245818/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Illegal arrest on mere suspicion under s.107 CrPC; Article 21 violation and Rs 25,000 compensation verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0040)

## Dabhra Man v. State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2024-0027)

**Record:** CW-2024-0027 (compiler id CWC-0728); case SWILLEGA-086
**Title:** Dabhra Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Ramesh Sinha; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
**Case number / citation:** WPCR No. 137 of 2024 / 2024:CGHC:30603-DB
**Judgment:** 2024-08-13 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-02-07 (2024)
**Place:** Sakti, Chhattisgarh; city town: Dabhra; police station or unit: Police Station Dabhra; Executive Magistrate Chhapora, Malkharoda; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC s.151; CrPC s.107; CrPC s.116(3); Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, PS Dabhra, Sakti; Naib Tahsildar (In-charge Executive Magistrate), Up-Tahsil Chhapora, Malkharoda (2 in record)
**Victims:** Dabhra man, age 37 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. Replace tagline with State contention (para 5: arrest on suspicion, surety default, denial of illegality). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Above facts clearly reveal that the right of life and liberty of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated, therefore, petitioner is entitled to get appropriate compensation.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5993399/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Dabhra Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['sections', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-08-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2024:CGHC:30603-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5993399/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Chhattisgarh HC DB order verified on Indian Kanoon; Rs 25,000 for s.107 remand without show-cause matches.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0027)

## Raipur Man v. State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2024-0020)

**Record:** CW-2024-0020 (compiler id CWC-0083); case CHHATT-013
**Title:** Raipur Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Amitendra Kishore Prasad
**Case number / citation:** WPC No. 1450 of 2013
**Judgment:** 2024-11-21 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-03-22 (1999)
**Place:** Raipur, Chhattisgarh; city town: Raipur; police station or unit: Central Jail, Raipur (then-SHO, Raipur found negligent in departmental enquiry); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 32
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (1 in record)
**Victims:** Raipur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Replace tagline with State case (paras 5, 7: suicide by Salphas tablet, no atrocity, DE ongoing against SHO); attribute third-degree passage to the court (para 15). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> When the person is taking into custody, it is the paramount duty of the police to keep him safely. If there is any dereliction of that duty, then undoubtedly the onus will be on the police to show that there was no negligence on their part.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2960264/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Raipur Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-11-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'WPC No. 1450 of 2013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2960264/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Police-negligence finding + Rs 3L compensation verified; district corrected to Raipur (death in Central Jail Raipur; Mungeli was petitioners' residence).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0020)

## Korba Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (CW-2025-0008)

**Record:** CW-2025-0008 (compiler id CWC-0078); case WEST---CENTRAL-003; aliases: CWC-1457
**Title:** Korba Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Ramesh Sinha; Bibhu Datta Guru
**Case number / citation:** WPCR No. 503 of 2024 / 2025:CGHC:23811-DB
**Judgment:** 2025-06-13 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-01-01 (2024)
**Place:** Korba, Chhattisgarh; city town: Korba; police station or unit: Police Station Darri, Korba; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line Rampur, Korba; Station House Officer staff, Police Station Darri, Korba (2 in record)
**Victims:** Korba man, age 27 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. Replace tagline with State contention (fall on railway line) and its rejection on post-mortem/CCTV grounds. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The State being the employer of the employees on account of whose negligence the death of deceased took place, is liable to pay such compensation to the petitioners.

**Sources (6):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/prema-haththel-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-13-june-2025-605349.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/chattisgarh-high-court/chhattisgarh-high-court-orders-compensation-custodial-death-case-295245); [lawtrend.in](https://lawtrend.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/13.06.2025-Chhattisgarh-High-Court-Awards-₹2-Lakh-Compensation-in-Custodial-Death-Case-of-Suraj-Haththel.pdf); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/custodial-death-chhattisgarh-hc-orders-2-lakh-compensation-to-mother-slams-state-for-rights-violation-1403749); [24law.in](https://24law.in/story/chhattisgarh-hc-slams-state-over-custodial-death-calls-injury-theory-a-fabrication-and-awards-compensation-for-breach-of-fundamental-rights); [lawtrend.in](https://lawtrend.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/13.06.2025-Chhattisgarh-High-Court-Awards-%E2%82%B92-Lakh-Compensation-in-Custodial-Death-Case-of-Suraj-Haththel.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Korba Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-06-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2025:CGHC:23811-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/prema-haththel-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-13-june-2025-605349.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/chattisgarh-high-court/chhattisgarh-high-court-orders-compensation-custodial-death-case-295245', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawtrend.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/13.06.2025-Chhattisgarh-High-Court-Awards-₹2-Lakh-Compensation-in-Custodial-Death-Case-of-Suraj-Haththel.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/custodial-death-chhattisgarh-hc-orders-2-lakh-compensation-to-mother-slams-state-for-rights-violation-1403749', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://24law.in/story/chhattisgarh-hc-slams-state-over-custodial-death-calls-injury-theory-a-fabrication-and-awards-compensation-for-breach-of-fundamental-rights', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawtrend.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/13.06.2025-Chhattisgarh-High-Court-Awards-%E2%82%B92-Lakh-Compensation-in-Custodial-Death-Case-of-Suraj-Haththel.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Chhattisgarh HC held State liable for a Korba man's custodial death; Rs 2 lakh compensation in 8 weeks.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0008)

## Gaindatola, village Khoratola Police Constable vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others (CW-2025-0009)

**Record:** CW-2025-0009 (compiler id CWC-0752); case CHHATT-002
**Title:** Gaindatola, village Khoratola Police Constable vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Ramesh Sinha; Bibhu Datta Guru
**Case number / citation:** WA No. 372 of 2025 (arising from WPS No. 285 of 2012) / 2025:CGHC:25555-DB
**Judgment:** 2025-06-19 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-02-06 (2009)
**Place:** Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh; city town: Gaindatola, village Khoratola; police station or unit: Police Station Gaindatola; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, PS Gaindatola, Rajnandgaon (1 in record)
**Victims:** Gaindatola, village Khoratola resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Drop/replace tagline: the proved departmental charge (charge-sheet, IO report, appellate finding) is the institutional case and is fully recorded. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> there is some evidence to prove the said charges, the charges were rightly proved and the punishment awarded is just and proper.

**Sources (1):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/chhatrapal-sahu-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-606859.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Gaindatola, village Khoratola Police Constable vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-06-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2025:CGHC:25555-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/chhatrapal-sahu-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-606859.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Chhattisgarh HC (DB) dismissed writ appeal and upheld removal of constable for demanding Rs. 5,000 bribe.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0009)

## CRPF Constable v. State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2025-0041)

**Record:** CW-2025-0041 (compiler id CWC-1269); case GAP3-81-003
**Title:** CRPF Constable v. State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Ramesh Sinha; Bibhu Datta Guru
**Case number / citation:** CRA No. 1950 of 2024 / 2025:CGHC:25748-DB; 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 60
**Judgment:** 2025-06-19 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2017-12-09 (2017)
**Place:** Bijapur, Chhattisgarh; city town: Basaguda; police station or unit: CRPF 168th Battalion camp, Basaguda; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307; Arms Act 25(1B)(a); Arms Act 27(1)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CRPF 168th Battalion, G Company, Basaguda, Bijapur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Basaguda resident; Basaguda resident; Basaguda resident; Basaguda resident; Basaguda resident (5 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. Drop/replace tagline with defence plea (conversion to s.304, stress/leave) and its rejection (para 32). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> From the analysis of the deposition made by the prosecution witnesses, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/display--longworkinghours-606479.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/chattisgarh-high-court/chhattisgarh-high-court-upholds-conviction-crpf-constable-murder-of-four-personnel-strenuous-conditions-naxal-area-295755); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/27/chhattisgarh-hc-upholds-conviction-crpf-personnel-killed-colleagues/); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/chhattisgarh-high-court/crpf-constable-murder-four-colleagues-sant-kumar-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-2025cghc25748-db-1582498)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 33
**display title redacted:** CRPF Constable v. State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2025:CGHC:25748-DB; 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 60', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-06-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2025:CGHC:25748-DB; 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 60', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/display--longworkinghours-606479.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/chattisgarh-high-court/chhattisgarh-high-court-upholds-conviction-crpf-constable-murder-of-four-personnel-strenuous-conditions-naxal-area-295755', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/27/chhattisgarh-hc-upholds-conviction-crpf-personnel-killed-colleagues/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/chhattisgarh-high-court/crpf-constable-murder-four-colleagues-sant-kumar-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-2025cghc25748-db-1582498', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Conviction of CRPF constable for murder of four colleagues upheld; victims were fellow personnel, not civilians.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0041](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0041)

## Mulmula Police Station House Officer and others vs State of Chhattisgarh (Mulmula Police personnel vs State of Chhattisgarh) (CW-2025-0032)

**Record:** CW-2025-0032 (compiler id CWC-0669); case GAP12-004
**Title:** Mulmula Police Station House Officer and others vs State of Chhattisgarh (Mulmula Police personnel vs State of Chhattisgarh)
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Sanjay K. Agrawal; Deepak Kumar Tiwari
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 611/2019, 705/2019, 681/2019, 609/2019 with Acquittal Appeal No. 676/2019 / 2025:CGHC:34873-DB
**Judgment:** 2025-07-22 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2016-09-17 (2016)
**Place:** Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh; city town: Mulmula; police station or unit: Mulmula Police Station, Janjgir-Champa; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Mulmula Police Station, Janjgir-Champa; Constable, Mulmula Police Station, Janjgir-Champa; Constable, Mulmula Police Station, Janjgir-Champa; Sainik, Mulmula Police Station, Janjgir-Champa (4 in record)
**Victims:** Mulmula man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 10 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. Replace 'merciless beating' with attributed wording; replace tagline with defence (mob assault, expert doubt, para 9+) and its rejection. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> उन्हें दिया गया आजीवन कारावास का दंडादेश अपास्त किया जाता है और इस परिवर्तित दोषसिद्धि के लिए उन्हें दस वर्ष के कठोर कारावास से दंडादिष्ट किया जाता है।

**Sources (2):** [highcourt.cg.gov.in](https://highcourt.cg.gov.in/hcbspjudgement/judgements_web_hindi/CRA611_19(22.07.25).pdf); [24law.in](https://24law.in/story/cruel-police-torture-led-to-custodial-death-chhattisgarh-high-court-calls-it-an-intolerable-betrayal)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 35
**display title redacted:** Mulmula Police Station House Officer and others vs State of Chhattisgarh (Mulmula Police personnel vs State of Chhattisgarh)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2025:CGHC:34873-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-07-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2025:CGHC:34873-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://highcourt.cg.gov.in/hcbspjudgement/judgements_web_hindi/CRA611_19(22.07.25).pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://24law.in/story/cruel-police-torture-led-to-custodial-death-chhattisgarh-high-court-calls-it-an-intolerable-betrayal', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB Hindi judgment PDF verified; 302/34 altered to 304-II/34, 10 years RI each for 4 policemen.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0032)

## Dhamtari Man v. State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2025-0033)

**Record:** CW-2025-0033 (compiler id CWC-0753); case GAP12-002; aliases: CWC-0670
**Title:** Dhamtari Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Ramesh Sinha; Bibhu Datta Guru
**Case number / citation:** WPCR No. 373 of 2025 / 2025:CGHC:49571-DB
**Judgment:** 2025-10-06 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-03-31 (2025)
**Place:** Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh; police station or unit: PS Arjuni; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, PS Arjuni, Dhamtari (1 in record)
**Victims:** Dhamtari man, age 41 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition of Durga Devi Katholiya, holding the State liable for the custodial death of her 41-year-old husband \[name withheld\] at PS Arjuni, Dhamtari. The court found he was hale and hearty when produced before the CJM at 5 p.m. on 31 March 2025 but was declared dead three hours later with 24 ante-mortem injuries, the cause of death being asphyxia. It held the death was the result of custodial violence and police atrocities in breach of Article 21, and directed Rs 3 lakh to the widow (for herself and two minor children) and Rs 1 lakh each to the parents within eight weeks, with 9% interest on default. The court also directed sensitisation of police personnel and strict adherence to the D.K. Basu guidelines. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> These circumstances leave no manner of doubt that the death was not natural but the result of custodial violence and police atrocities, in complete breach of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

**Sources (2):** [lawtrend.in](https://lawtrend.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025_oct_17170_1_2025_10_06.pdf); [english.dainikjagranmpcg.com](https://english.dainikjagranmpcg.com/states/chhattisgarh/high-court’s-landmark-decision-state-held-responsible-for-death-in/article-6131)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 28
**display title redacted:** Dhamtari Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-10-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2025:CGHC:49571-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://lawtrend.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025_oct_17170_1_2025_10_06.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://english.dainikjagranmpcg.com/states/chhattisgarh/high-court’s-landmark-decision-state-held-responsible-for-death-in/article-6131', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held death result of custodial violence; Rs 5 lakh compensation to family.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0033)

## Bhilai Man v. State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2026-0004)

**Record:** CW-2026-0004 (compiler id CWC-0079); case SWILLEGA-022; aliases: CWC-1448; CWC-1458
**Title:** Bhilai Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Ramesh Sinha; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
**Case number / citation:** WPCR No. 553 of 2025 / 2026:CGHC:3546-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-01-21 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-09-08 (2025)
**Place:** Durg, Chhattisgarh; city town: Bhilai; police station or unit: PS Smriti Nagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** BNSS 170
**Officers (gated display forms):** Thana In-Charge, Smriti Nagar Police Station, Durg; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Smriti Nagar Police Station, Durg; Constable, Smriti Nagar Police Station, Durg; Constable, Smriti Nagar Police Station, Durg; Constable, Smriti Nagar Police Station, Durg; Constable, Smriti Nagar Police Station, Durg; Station House Officer, Supela Police Station, Durg (7 in record)
**Victims:** Bhilai man, age 30 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Division Bench held that law student and Bhilai hotel operator \[name withheld\] was subjected to an illegal hotel raid at Kohka on 8 September 2025, arrest without FIR on mere suspicion, and mechanical remand, establishing illegal arrest, unlawful detention and unwarranted incarceration in breach of Article 21. The court awarded Rs 1 lakh compensation as public-law remedy within four weeks (9% interest on default), recoverable from the erring Smriti Nagar officials after due inquiry. It quashed the preventive order dated 8 September 2025, the istagasha and criminal case No. 1379/2025, lamenting that illegal arrest and custodial violence erode public trust. Subcategory corrected from custodial_torture: the court's concluded findings concern illegal arrest and detention. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Above being the position of fact and law, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner, along with his parents has suffered severe mental, emotional, and financial hardship due to illegal detention.

**Sources (6):** [s3.ap-southeast-1.wasabisys.com](https://s3.ap-southeast-1.wasabisys.com/static-images/20260123115702af1918.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/chhattisgarh-high-court/chhattisgarh-high-court-compensation-law-student-illegal-arrest-520161); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/chhattisgarh-high-court/akash-kumar-sahu-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-through-the-secretary-department-of-home-neutral-citation-2026cghc3546-db-arrest-detention-hotelier-remand-judicial-magistrate-1605338); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2047000055320256watermark-1766469.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194318630/); [english.dainikjagranmpcg.com](https://english.dainikjagranmpcg.com/states/chhattisgarh/high-court-fines-police-%E2%82%B91-lakh-for-illegal-hotel-raid/article-12902)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Bhilai Man v. State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-01-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026:CGHC:3546-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://s3.ap-southeast-1.wasabisys.com/static-images/20260123115702af1918.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/chhattisgarh-high-court/chhattisgarh-high-court-compensation-law-student-illegal-arrest-520161', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/chhattisgarh-high-court/akash-kumar-sahu-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-through-the-secretary-department-of-home-neutral-citation-2026cghc3546-db-arrest-detention-hotelier-remand-judicial-magistrate-1605338', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2047000055320256watermark-1766469.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194318630/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://english.dainikjagranmpcg.com/states/chhattisgarh/high-court-fines-police-%E2%82%B91-lakh-for-illegal-hotel-raid/article-12902', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held hotel raid/arrest/detention illegal; Rs 1L compensation; proceedings quashed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0004)

## Durg Man vs State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2026-0080)

**Record:** CW-2026-0080 (compiler id CWC-1358); case cop-ct-hc-2
**Title:** Durg Man vs State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; judges: \[name withheld\]; \[name withheld\]
**Case number / citation:** WPCR No. 11 of 2026 / 2026:CGHC:3546-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-01-21 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-10-22 (2025)
**Place:** Durg, Chhattisgarh; police station or unit: Police Chowki Smriti Nagar, PS Supela; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Article 21 Constitution of India; Article 22 Constitution of India; Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar; Satender Kumar Antil v CBI; D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal; Section 35 BNSS; Section 187 BNSS
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, Police Chowki Smriti Nagar, PS Supela, Durg; CSP, PS Supela, Durg; ASI, Police Chowki Smriti Nagar, PS Supela, Durg; Head Constable, Police Chowki Smriti Nagar, PS Supela, Durg; Head Constable, Police Chowki Smriti Nagar, PS Supela, Durg; Constable, Police Chowki Smriti Nagar, PS Supela, Durg; Constable, Police Chowki Smriti Nagar, PS Supela, Durg (7 in record)
**Victims:** Durg man; Durg man; Durg man; Durg man; Durg man (5 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court found serious procedural lapses and irregularities by police officials at Smriti Nagar Chowki, Durg. The petitioners were illegally detained, subjected to physical and mental torture, handcuffed illegally, paraded on public roads, and forced to shout humiliating slogans. The SHO appeared unauthorizedly during bail proceedings, prompting adverse judicial observations. The Court directed the DGP to examine the SHO's conduct, take disciplinary measures if warranted, issue standing instructions to all units against deviation from constitutional safeguards, and sensitize police personnel on Arnesh Kumar, Satender Kumar Antil, and D.K. Basu guidelines.

> This Court records its serious concern and strong disapproval of the manner in which respondent No.2, Station House Officer, Police Chowki Smriti Nagar, Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.), appears to have acted, revealing a casual and hasty approach in the exercise of police powers, in clear disregard of the constitutional safeguards and procedural mandates governing arrest, detention and treatment of citizens.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144541158/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** Paragraph 31
**display title redacted:** Durg Man vs State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-01-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2026:CGHC:3546-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144541158/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** court_quote.text names a police officer by personal name (Shri \[name withheld\]) in violation of privacy rule requiring redaction of officer names in any field; rank/unit verification otherwise matches respondents 2-8
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0080](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0080)

## Balodabazar-Bhatapara Man vs State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2026-0079)

**Record:** CW-2026-0079 (compiler id CWC-1357); case cop-ct-hc-1
**Title:** Balodabazar-Bhatapara Man vs State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; judges: \[name withheld\]; \[name withheld\]
**Case number / citation:** CRMP No. 669 of 2026 / 2026:CGHC:13121-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-03-19 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-04-29 (2025)
**Place:** Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh; police station or unit: Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Section 6 of Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022; Article 226 Constitution of India
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar; Investigating Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Balodabazar-Bhatapara man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court quashed FIR No. 0425/2025 dated 29.04.2025 and chargesheet No. 453/2025 under Section 6 of Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 against the petitioner, finding he was implicated solely on the custodial memorandum statement of co-accused \[name withheld\] recorded at 10:30 hours before the petitioner's arrest shown at 11:00 hours on 01.05.2025, with no recovery from petitioner. The Court held it indicates a mala fide exercise of power and abuse of process, noting prior clean acquittals, externment proceedings rejected, and a prior FIR quashed vide order dated 06.08.2025 in CRMP No. 1024/2022.

> The undisputed position which emerges from the record is that the present petitioner has been implicated in the crime in question solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused, namely \[name withheld\], recorded during police custody. It is well-settled that a memorandum or confessional statement of a co-accused, by itself, does not constitute substantive evidence and cannot be made the sole basis for implicating another accused.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121601686/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** Paragraph 15-16
**display title redacted:** Balodabazar-Bhatapara Man vs State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-03-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2026:CGHC:13121-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121601686/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** sections lists Section 482 CrPC; source excerpt cites Section 6 of Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act 2022 with Article 226, Section 262 BNSS / Section 482 (BNSS era), not 482 CrPC; officers lists generic Head Constable + Investigating Officer; source names one Head Constable by personal name (correctly redacted in data) and otherwise refers to investigating agency generally with mala fide finding
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0079](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0079)

## Gharghoda Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (CW-2026-0030)

**Record:** CW-2026-0030 (compiler id CWC-0754); case WEST---CENTRAL-005; aliases: CWC-0633
**Title:** Gharghoda Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
**Court:** Chhattisgarh High Court; judges: Ramesh Sinha; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
**Case number / citation:** WPCR No. 564 of 2025 / 2026:CGHC:30886-DB; 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 87
**Judgment:** 2026-07-21 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-10-25 (2025)
**Place:** Raigarh, Chhattisgarh; city town: Gharghoda; police station or unit: Police Station Gharghoda; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** BNSS 170; BNSS 126; BNSS 135(3)
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, Police Station Gharghoda, Raigarh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Gharghoda man, age 49 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court records the following account. Summoned to Police Station Gharghoda, Raigarh, a Gharghoda man was arrested merely on suspicion though no cognizable or non-bailable offence was made out, and an Ishtgasa under BNSS ss.170/126 was prepared on 25 October 2025. Although the Executive Magistrate ordered his release on a Rs.1 lakh bond and he furnished it, the bond was sent for verification and he spent about four days in judicial custody before release. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that a person arrested merely on suspicion where only a bailable case exists must be released on bail and cannot be remanded to custody. The Court held the detention violated the petitioner's Article 21 right to life and liberty, allowed the writ petition, and directed the State to pay Rs.25,000 compensation within 30 days, citing D.K. Basu, Nilabati Behera and Sube Singh. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The above facts clearly reveal that the right of life and liberty of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get appropriate compensation.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/28/ashraf-beg-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-689784.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/chhattisgarh-high-court/compensation-illegal-detention-jail-despite-furnishing-bail-bond-543308)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Gharghoda Man v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['secondary_sources', 'sections'\]}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Two unrelated sources removed (a 2010 Kerala judgment in a different, 1970 case and an encyclopedia page about that case); the record rests on the Chhattisgarh High Court order in WPCR No. 564 of 2025.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-07-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Chhattisgarh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Chhattisgarh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026:CGHC:30886-DB; 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 87', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/28/ashraf-beg-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-689784.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/chhattisgarh-high-court/compensation-illegal-detention-jail-despite-furnishing-bail-bond-543308', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/533795/lakshmana-k-ips-appellant-hash-cbi-and-another-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arikkad_Varghese', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Illegal arrest on suspicion and 4-day custody despite furnished bail bond; Article 21 violation with Rs.25,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0030)

## Seepat Man and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (CW-2026-0035)

**Record:** CW-2026-0035 (compiler id CWC-0080); case CHHATT-010
**Title:** Seepat Man and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta
**Case number / citation:** SLP (Crl.) No. 728 of 2026 / 2026 INSC 840; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1550; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 794
**Judgment:** 2026-08-12 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-01-22 (2024)
**Place:** Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh; city town: Seepat; police station or unit: PS Seepat; Central Jail, Bilaspur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, PS Seepat; Central Jail, Bilaspur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Seepat man, age 34 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25 lakh (Rs 25,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Seepat man, aged 34 and the sole breadwinner of his family, was arrested by PS Seepat on 18 January 2024 for possessing six litres of mahua liquor and died in custody on 22 January 2024 with a fatal blunt head injury and multiple ante-mortem injuries recorded in the Section 176 CrPC judicial inquiry. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's finding of custodial violence, rejected the State's plea of inaction over the unserved inquiry report as a cover-up story, and called the High Court's Rs 1 lakh award a pittance. As an interim measure, the court directed Rs 25 lakh compensation within four weeks and ordered the CBI to register a regular criminal case and prosecute all officials found responsible. The court also directed the DGP to transmit all records within a week, reserving final determination of compensation for later. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus, as an interim measure, we direct that compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- (TwentyFive Lakhs Only) shall be paid

**Sources (5):** [sci.gov.in](https://www.sci.gov.in/sci-get-pdf/?diary_no=489632025&type=j&order_date=2026-08-12&from=latest_judgements_order); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-orders-cbi-probe-into-chhattisgarh-custodial-death-grants-25-lakh-compensation-to-kin-545422); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-orders-cbi-probe-into-chhattisgarh-custodial-death-slams-dgp-state-officials-for-cover-up); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/08/17/supreme-court-orders-cbi-probe-into-custodial-death-awards-25-lakh-compensation/); [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2026/august/lahra-bai-tamre-vs-state-of-chattisgarh-45)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Seepat Man and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026 INSC 840; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1550; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 794', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.sci.gov.in/sci-get-pdf/?diary_no=489632025&type=j&order_date=2026-08-12&from=latest_judgements_order', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-orders-cbi-probe-into-chhattisgarh-custodial-death-grants-25-lakh-compensation-to-kin-545422', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-orders-cbi-probe-into-chhattisgarh-custodial-death-slams-dgp-state-officials-for-cover-up', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/08/17/supreme-court-orders-cbi-probe-into-custodial-death-awards-25-lakh-compensation/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2026/august/lahra-bai-tamre-vs-state-of-chattisgarh-45', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC order verified via sci.gov.in + 3 reports; interim Rs 25L + CBI probe; final quantum pending.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0035)

## Mahasamund Man vs State of Chhattisgarh (CW-2026-0078)

**Record:** CW-2026-0078 (compiler id CWC-1356); case cop-ct-hc-0
**Title:** Mahasamund Man vs State of Chhattisgarh
**Court:** High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; judges: \[name withheld\]; \[name withheld\]
**Case number / citation:** WPCR No. 1 of 2025 / CGHC010003352025
**Judgment:** 2026-08-19 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh; police station or unit: District Jail, Mahasamund; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Section 302 IPC
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Mahasamund (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mahasamund man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 7.5 lakh (Rs 7,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court took suo motu cognizance of a custodial death where an undertrial prisoner detained under Section 302 IPC died in District Jail, Mahasamund, with 35 injuries found on his body during postmortem. State counsel stated Rs 7,50,000 had already been paid on 20.09.2025 per Assistant Jail Superintendent letter dated 21.09.2025. The Court strongly criticized custodial violence as a blow to rule of law and directed the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police to file personal affidavits explaining the circumstances, listing the case on 31.08.2026.

> Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock ups, strikes a blow at the Rule of Law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is committed by persons who are supposed to be the protectors of the citizens.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55575265/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** Order Sheet, page 2/3
**display title redacted:** Mahasamund Man vs State of Chhattisgarh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'CGHC010003352025', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55575265/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** incident_date 2025-09-20 is the compensation payment date (paid on 20.09.2025 per letter dated 21.09.2025), not the custodial death date; death date not stated in order excerpt; sections includes Section 176 CrPC which does not appear in source excerpt; only Section 302 IPC verified; officers claims Jail Superintendent held_liable; source names only Assistant Jail Superintendent (re compensation letter) and directs Chief Secretary and DGP to file personal affidavits; no liability finding against a named officer yet, matter listed to 31.08.2026; outcome_type adverse_finding_compensation overstates: Rs 7,50,000 noted as already paid, not ordered as compensation by this order
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0078](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0078)

## Daman Man vs Union Territory of Diu, Daman and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Others (CW-2016-0009)

**Record:** CW-2016-0009 (compiler id CWC-0128); case GOADNH-002
**Title:** Daman Man vs Union Territory of Diu, Daman and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: A.S. Oka; A.A. Sayed
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1545 of 2016
**Judgment:** 2016-12-22 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-07-02 (2009)
**Place:** Daman, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu; city town: Daman; police station or unit: Daman Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 384; IPC 506
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Daman Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Daman man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 4 lakh (Rs 4,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court held that the Daman administration grossly violated journalist Satish Sharma's fundamental rights under Article 21 by illegally handcuffing and parading him, then an undertrial in an extortion case, from Nani Daman bus stand to Daman police station through a crowded market on 2 July 2009. The parading, by three police constables without magisterial permission, was contrary to the Supreme Court's Prem Shankar Shukla and Citizens for Democracy directions, and stood proved by the unchallenged enquiry report of the Principal District Judge, Silvassa. The Court directed the Union Territory to pay Rs 4 lakh compensation plus Rs 25,000 costs within two months (9% interest on default), ordered an enquiry to fix responsibility on the erring officers, and kept the petitioner's civil remedy open. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We hold that the administration of the said Union Territory has violated the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by illegally handcuffing and parading him on 2nd July 2009.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36122219/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/bombay-hc-directs-dadra-nagar-haveli-govt-pay-rs-4-lakh-relief-journalist)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Daman Man vs Union Territory of Diu, Daman and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-12-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 400,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 1545 of 2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36122219/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/bombay-hc-directs-dadra-nagar-haveli-govt-pay-rs-4-lakh-relief-journalist', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; illegal handcuffing/parading, Rs 4 lakh + costs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2016-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0009)

## Delhi Police Police Constable v. Delhi Administration (and connected appeal) (CW-1958-0001)

**Record:** CW-1958-0001 (compiler id CWC-0439); case SWBRIBER-012
**Title:** Delhi Police Police Constable v. Delhi Administration (and connected appeal)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. J. Imam; B. P. Sinha
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeals Nos. 202-203 of 1957 / AIR 1958 SC 350; 1958 SCR 1218
**Judgment:** 1958-02-06 (1958, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1955-11-06 (1955)
**Place:** Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1947 s.5(2); IPC 120B; IPC 224/109
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Delhi Police; Police Constable, Delhi Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of two Delhi police constables, led by \[name withheld\], upholding their conviction by the Special Judge, Delhi under Section 120B and Section 224/109 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court found that between 6 and 16 November 1955 they conspired to bring about the escape of undertrial M.P. Khare from lawful custody, agreeing to accept illegal gratification and abetting the escape, with gratification accepted from Nand Parkash Kapur. It rejected the challenge to the approver's pardon granted by the District Magistrate under Section 337 CrPC 1898, holding a Special Judge's court is a Court of Session for that purpose. The sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 5(2) and nine months under each IPC count stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The findings of the High Court establish the offence of the appellants under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and we can find no sufficient reason to think that the appellants were wrongly convicted thereunder. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/794096/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Police Constable v. Delhi Administration (and connected appeal)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1958 SC 350; 1958 SCR 1218', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1958-02-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1958 SC 350; 1958 SCR 1218', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/794096/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; two constables' s.5(2) PC Act 1947 conviction upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1958-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1958-0001)

## Delhi Police personnel vs Delhi Administration (CW-1968-0001)

**Record:** CW-1968-0001 (compiler id CWC-0544); case SWEXTORT-009
**Title:** Delhi Police personnel vs Delhi Administration
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: V. Ramaswami; C.A. Vaidialingam
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1966 / AIR 1968 SC 1419; (1969) 1 SCR 183
**Judgment:** 1968-05-01 (1968, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1963-08-29 (1963)
**Place:** South Delhi, Delhi; city town: Andrews Ganj; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1947 s.5(2); IPC 161
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Andrews Ganj man; Andrews Ganj woman; Andrews Ganj man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Police officer went in uniform to an Andrews Ganj man's Andrews Ganj house on 29 August 1963, accused the family of disposing of an illegitimate child, and demanded Rs.1,000 to save them from prosecution, taking Rs.90 plus a written undertaking and seizing a gold ring from an Andrews Ganj man An anti-corruption trap on 4 September 1963 recovered marked Rs.700 notes from his pocket. The Special Judge convicted him under s.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and s.161 IPC, and the Punjab High Court affirmed the two-year concurrent RI sentences while setting aside the fine. The Supreme Court held that obtaining money by threatening an imaginary prosecution still constitutes illegal gratification and criminal misconduct, and dismissed the appeal.

> Upon the finding of the High Court in this case it is manifest that the appellant grossly abused his position as a police officer and extorted money from an Andrews Ganj man and his wife and also a gold ring from an Andrews Ganj man

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/392942/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab4ee4b014971140c2a8); [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1968/may/shiv-raj-singh-vs-delhi-administration-insc-137-1-may-1968-4)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police personnel vs Delhi Administration
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1968 SC 1419; (1969) 1 SCR 183', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1968-05-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1968 SC 1419; (1969) 1 SCR 183', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/392942/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab4ee4b014971140c2a8', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1968/may/shiv-raj-singh-vs-delhi-administration-insc-137-1-may-1968-4', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC affirmed 2-year RI conviction of Delhi police officer for bribe/extortion via trap recovery.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1968-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1968-0001)

## Union of India vs Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (CW-1969-0001)

**Record:** CW-1969-0001 (compiler id CWC-1107); case GAP3-127-016
**Title:** Union of India vs Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: M. Hidayatullah; J. C. Shah; V. Ramaswami; A. N. Grover; G. K. Mitter
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 1111 of 1965 / AIR 1970 SC 122; (1969) 2 SCC 108
**Judgment:** 1969-04-01 (1969, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1949-01-01 (1949)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Police Station Daryaganj, Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Daryaganj, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 1 April 1969 allowed the Union's appeal and dismissed Sub-Inspector's suit, restoring his 1949 dismissal from the Delhi Police. The Court found that the Daryaganj SI had been found guilty in a departmental enquiry of accepting a bribe connected with a criminal case. It held that the re-employed Deputy Superintendent remained a superior police officer competent to hold the enquiry, that city Superintendents of Police were competent dismissing authorities, and that oral evidence proved substantial compliance with Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules. The dismissal was restored with no order as to costs and no compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The respondent was found guilty of the charge and was dismissed from service by the order dated December 8, 1949, passed by one Jagannath, a Superintendent of Police in the Delhi Police Force.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/825886/); [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1969/april/union-of-india-vs-jagjit-singh-insc-97-1-april-1969-1)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Union of India vs Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1969-04-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1970 SC 122; (1969) 2 SCC 108', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/825886/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1969/april/union-of-india-vs-jagjit-singh-insc-97-1-april-1969-1', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC restored dismissal of Daryaganj SI for bribe-taking; enquiry-officer status and SP competence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1969-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1969-0001)

## Delhi Police Constable vs The State (CW-1974-0003)

**Record:** CW-1974-0003 (compiler id CWC-1161); case GAP3-37-001
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable vs The State
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: P.S. Safeer
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 186 of 1972 / 10(1974)DLT197
**Judgment:** 1974-04-19 (1974, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1969-07-15 (1969)
**Place:** Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Police Station Kashmere Gate; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1947 s.5(2); PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d); IPC 161
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Station Kashmere Gate, Delhi (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court (P.S. Safeer, J.) on 19 April 1974 dismissed the appeal of Delhi Police constable of Police Station Kashmere Gate and upheld his conviction for demanding and accepting a Rs 60 bribe to release scooter-rickshaw DLR-5813. The court held the Anti-Corruption trap evidence proved demand and acceptance, with phenolphthalein-treated notes recovered after the appellant threw them across a wall on seeing the raiding Inspector. It held the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arose against him and the defence version had no veracity. The concurrent sentences of two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs 500 fine were maintained; the Supreme Court dismissed the further appeal on 15 February 1980 (AIR 1980 SC 873).

> An over-all appreciation of evidence on the record leads to the conclusion that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the accused. The defense version did not contain even an iota of veracity. There is no justification for interfering with the conviction or the sentence imposed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1673043/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91976/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable vs The State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '10(1974)DLT197', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1974-04-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '10(1974)DLT197', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1673043/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91976/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld PC Act bribery conviction of constable on trap evidence; SC affirmed in 1980.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1974-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1974-0003)

## Delhi Police Head Constable v. State (Delhi Administration) (CW-1976-0001)

**Record:** CW-1976-0001 (compiler id CWC-0350); case SWBRIBER-016
**Title:** Delhi Police Head Constable v. State (Delhi Administration)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: P. K. Goswami; P. N. Shingal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 1971 / (1976) 1 SCC 644; AIR 1976 SC 449
**Judgment:** 1976-01-08 (1976, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1969-04-08 (1969)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Lahori Gate Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(2); PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Lahori Gate Police Station, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court dismissed Criminal Appeal 209 of 1971 and upheld the conviction of Head Constable of Lahori Gate police station under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2)/5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, already affirmed by the Delhi High Court. The Court found complainant \[name withheld\], an unlicensed hawker, complained on 7 April 1969 that the Head Constable demanded Rs 10 for not challaning his brother and Rs 50 for future immunity, and an Anti-Corruption trap caught him with the money passing into his pocket. It held trap witnesses are neither accomplices nor interested per se and rejected the charge-prejudice and planting defences. The 1-year RI sentences with Rs 100 fine were maintained and surrender directed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The High Court and the trial court cannot, therefore, be said to have made any gross error of law in appreciating the evidence and coming to the conclusion that the charges against the accused were fully established.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/540986/); [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1976/january/maha-singh-vs-state-insc-2-8-january-1976-2)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Head Constable v. State (Delhi Administration)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1976) 1 SCC 644; AIR 1976 SC 449', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1976-01-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(1976) 1 SCC 644; AIR 1976 SC 449', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/540986/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1976/january/maha-singh-vs-state-insc-2-8-january-1976-2', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified via mirror (primary 429); Head Constable bribery conviction upheld, surrender directed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1976-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1976-0001)

## Delhi Man vs \[name withheld\] and Others (CW-1977-0002)

**Record:** CW-1977-0002 (compiler id CWC-0782); case GAP2-17-003
**Title:** Delhi Man vs \[name withheld\] and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: B.C. Misra
**Case number / citation:** RFA 10-D of 1964 with RFA 179-D of 1963 / (1977) CriLJ 1984 : ILR (1977) Delhi 549
**Judgment:** 1977-01-14 (1977, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1957-03-21 (1957)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Kotwali Police Station, Chandni Chowk; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC s.54 (as then in force)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Station House Officer), Kotwali Police Station, Chandni Chowk, Delhi Police; Naut Ram Yadav (Assistant Sub-Inspector) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 12,500
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court held two Kotwali police officers personally liable for the false imprisonment of advocate a Delhi man, whom ASI Naut Ram Yadav arrested from court premises on 21 March 1957 relying on stale register entries that wrongly showed him as a proclaimed offender despite his discharge by a Magistrate in 1950. The Court found the ASI had arrested the plaintiff without verification despite his protests and held SHO liable for directing the drive and negligently failing to supervise the incorrect registers. It dismissed the Union of India's appeal, partly allowed the plaintiff's appeal, and decreed Rs 12,500 in damages jointly and severally against both officers and the Union of India, while recommending the Government consider action over the wrong register entries.

> We, therefore, find that defendant No. 2 is fully guilty of the tort of false imprisonment.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/596273/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/683258/ram-pyare-lal-vs-om-parkash-ors)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Delhi Man vs \[name withheld\] and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1977-01-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 12,500.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1977) CriLJ 1984 : ILR (1977) Delhi 549', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/596273/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/683258/ram-pyare-lal-vs-om-parkash-ors', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held two named Delhi Police officers personally liable for false imprisonment; Rs 12,500 decreed jointly and severally.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1977-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1977-0002)

## Delhi Police Police Constable v. Delhi Administration (CW-1980-0001)

**Record:** CW-1980-0001 (compiler id CWC-0443); case SWBRIBER-017
**Title:** Delhi Police Police Constable v. Delhi Administration
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: R.S. Sarkaria; O. Chinnappa Reddy
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1974 / 1980 SCC (2) 390; AIR 1980 SC 873
**Judgment:** 1980-02-15 (1980, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1969-07-12 (1969)
**Place:** Delhi; city town: Kashmere Gate, Delhi; police station or unit: Kashmere Gate Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d)/5(2); IPC 161
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Kashmere Gate Police Station, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kashmere Gate, Delhi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1974, by special leave) dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of Delhi Police Constable, already confirmed by the Delhi High Court (Crl. A. No. 186/72): two years' rigorous imprisonment on each of the two counts (plus Rs 500 fine on the first count), to run concurrently. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91976/); [acbmaharashtra.gov.in](https://acbmaharashtra.gov.in/files/judgment29.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Police Constable v. Delhi Administration
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1980 SCC (2) 390; AIR 1980 SC 873', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1980-02-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '1980 SCC (2) 390; AIR 1980 SC 873', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91976/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://acbmaharashtra.gov.in/files/judgment29.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment text verified; police constable bribery conviction under PC Act 1947 + IPC 161 upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1980-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1980-0001)

## State (Delhi Administration) vs Khem Chand (CW-1983-0002)

**Record:** CW-1983-0002 (compiler id CWC-0781); case GAP2-17-002
**Title:** State (Delhi Administration) vs Khem Chand
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: R.N. Aggarwal; Malik Sharief-Ud-Din
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1977 / 25(1984)DLT134
**Judgment:** 1983-11-24 (1983, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1975-09-19 (1975)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi (Patel Nagar); police station or unit: Patel Nagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d); PC Act 1947 s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Khem Chand (Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.08 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Complainant \[name withheld\] reported an assault and trespass at Patel Nagar police station, where a Section 452 IPC case was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Khem Chand; on 19 September 1975 Khem Chand told him his case was weak and demanded Rs. 100 and wine to champion his cause. The Anti-Corruption Branch laid a trap at the complainant's residence on 20 September 1975, where the accused accepted the bribe and the money was recovered from him. The Special Judge acquitted him on 30 October 1976 holding the demand unproved. The court held the Special Judge's approach basically erroneous, found the trap, recovery and phenolphthalein evidence proved acceptance, reversed the acquittal, convicted him under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2)/5(1)(d) PC Act 1947, and, recording special reasons, sentenced him to one month RI plus Rs. 100 fine (concurrent) with a direction to surrender forthwith. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We, therefore, accept this appeal, reverse the finding of learned Special Judge and hold the accused guilty under section 161 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act and convict him accordingly.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1809913/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/685203/state-delhi-administration-vs-khem-chand)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** State (Delhi Administration) vs Khem Chand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1983-11-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '25(1984)DLT134', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1809913/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/685203/state-delhi-administration-vs-khem-chand', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Acquittal reversed on State appeal; SI convicted of bribery under s.161 IPC and PC Act 1947.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-1983-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1983-0002)

## State (Delhi Administration) vs Delhi Police Constable (CW-1984-0002)

**Record:** CW-1984-0002 (compiler id CWC-1162); case GAP3-37-002
**Title:** State (Delhi Administration) vs Delhi Police Constable
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: R.N. Aggarwal; Malik Sharief-Ud-Din
**Case number / citation:** (1985) CriLJ 1190
**Judgment:** 1984-05-03 (1984, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-02-20 (1980)
**Place:** Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: Police Station Defence Colony; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** Delhi Police Act s.91; Delhi Police Act s.93; Delhi Police Act s.97
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** fine
**Sentence type:** fine (fine)

The Delhi High Court Division Bench (R.N. Aggarwal and Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, JJ.) on 3 May 1984 allowed the State's acquittal appeal and restored the Metropolitan Magistrate's conviction of Delhi Police constable for drunken disorderly conduct and abuse outside House B-52, Kidwai Nagar, on the night of 20/21 February 1980. The court held the evidence of police witnesses who testified against a colleague, corroborated by the householder, was trustworthy, and that proof of intoxication was immaterial since the Delhi Police Act punishes indecent and disorderly behaviour regardless. It held no sanction under Section 197 CrPC was needed because abusing people and unruly conduct are not remotely connected with official duty. The acquittal dated 4 May 1983 was set aside and the fine of Rs 100 (in default 7 days simple imprisonment) restored. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> we hereby set aside his judgment dt. 4-5-1983 by which he has acquitted the respondent and we restore and affirm the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dt. 3-4-1981

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/379592/state-delhi-administration-appellant-hash-sube-singh-respondent-1/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/882083/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** State (Delhi Administration) vs Delhi Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1984-05-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1985) CriLJ 1190', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/379592/state-delhi-administration-appellant-hash-sube-singh-respondent-1/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/882083/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC reversed acquittal and restored magistrate conviction of constable; sanction held not required.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-1984-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1984-0002)

## Delhi Resident v. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters (CW-1989-0004)

**Record:** CW-1989-0004 (compiler id CWC-0755); case SWCUSTOD-012
**Title:** Delhi Resident v. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: G. L. Oza; K. N. Saikia
**Case number / citation:** (1989) 4 SCC 730
**Judgment:** 1989-01-13 (1989, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-01-01 (1988)
**Place:** Delhi; city town: Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi resident; Delhi woman; Delhi resident; Delhi resident; Delhi resident; Delhi resident; Delhi resident; Delhi resident; Delhi resident; Delhi resident (10 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,700
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court recorded the DCP's frank admission of police atrocity and awarded compensation to ten victims. Delhi Police had collected poor labourers, took them to the police station for unpaid work, and on demand of wages beat them; a Delhi resident succumbed to injuries and his body was disposed of, while the survivor was stripped and thrashed. The court directed Rs 50,000 for the deceased's family (invested via LIC for monthly support), Rs 500 for the survivor and Rs 25 each for the other eight, recoverable from the guilty officers' salaries after show cause. It noted the SHO had been arrested and criminal prosecution was underway, and preserved further lawful compensation claims. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is an unfortunate case where the police collected poor people and took them to the Police Station for doing some work. They were asked to work without labour charges. On demand they were beaten and it appears that one of them a Delhi resident succumbed to the injuries and the body has also been disposed of.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1600010/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Delhi Resident v. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1989-01-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,700.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1989) 4 SCC 730', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1600010/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC recorded DCP admission of atrocity; compensated 10 victims; SHO arrested.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1989-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1989-0004)

## Anand Parbat, Patel Nagar Boy vs Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters (CW-1989-0002)

**Record:** CW-1989-0002 (compiler id CWC-0105); case DELHI-014
**Title:** Anand Parbat, Patel Nagar Boy vs Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: B.C. Ray; S.R. Pandian
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petitions (Criminal) under Article 32 (Saheli) / 1990 (1) SCC 422; AIR 1990 SC 513
**Judgment:** 1989-12-14 (1989, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-11-14 (1987)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Anand Parbat, Patel Nagar; police station or unit: Anand Parbat Police Station, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Lal Singh (Station House Officer); Sub-Inspector, Anand Parbat Police Station, Delhi Police (4 in record)
**Victims:** Anand Parbat, Patel Nagar boy, age 9; Anand Parbat, Patel Nagar woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 75,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court (B.C. Ray, J.) held the 9-year-old son of one of two tenant women was done to death by beating and assault by SHO Lal Singh, and directed Delhi Administration to pay the mother 75,000 compensation within four weeks, recoverable from officers found responsible. The Court relied on the Crime Branch Inspector's report (finding police conspiracy with the landlords who wanted the Anand Parbat rooms vacated) and the DCP's counter-affidavit admitting the SHO took part in the beating; the child's grievous leg injury caused fever and pneumonitis resulting in death, and a criminal case (first 308/34, altered to 304/34 IPC) was registered. The Court stated its observations would not have a bearing on the pending criminal prosecution of the police officials.

> \[a 9-year-old boy\] was done to death on account of the beating and assault by the agency of the sovereign power acting in violation and excess of the power vested in such agency.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/467223/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**display title redacted:** Anand Parbat, Patel Nagar Boy vs Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1989-12-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 75,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1990 (1) SCC 422; AIR 1990 SC 513', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/467223/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: SC held 9-year-old beaten to death by SHO; Rs 75,000 to mother.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 9, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 9-year-old boy'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1989-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1989-0002)

## Delhi Man and Others vs Commissioner of Police and Others (CW-1992-0005)

**Record:** CW-1992-0005 (compiler id CWC-0122); case DELHI-031
**Title:** Delhi Man and Others vs Commissioner of Police and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Anil Dev Singh
**Case number / citation:** 1993 ACJ 393; 48 (1992) DLT 714
**Judgment:** 1992-04-22 (1992, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-05-02 (1991)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Police Station Lahori Gate, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304; IPC 330; IPC 348; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Station Lahori Gate, Delhi Police; Police personnel, Police Station Lahori Gate, Delhi Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court awarded Rs 1 lakh plus a job to the family of a Delhi man, beaten to death at PS Lahori Gate. Picked up hale and hearty by Constable on mere suspicion in the wee hours of 2 May 1991, he reached St. Stephen Hospital unconscious the same day with 16 ante-mortem injuries and died of cerebral damage on 10 May; the SDM inquest found severe beating in the police station and FIR 430/1991 was lodged against the constable. The Court held the family must be given adequate compensation for the custodial killing, recoverable from the erring officers after trial, while clarifying its observations would not prejudice the criminal proceedings. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> According to the inquest report the deceased before his death was given severe beating in the police station.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/579717/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43971311/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** Delhi Man and Others vs Commissioner of Police and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1992-04-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1993 ACJ 393; 48 (1992) DLT 714', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/579717/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43971311/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Suspicion-pickup beaten to death; Rs 1L plus widow's job, recoverable from erring officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1992-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1992-0005)

## Delhi Woman v. Delhi Administration & Ors. (CW-1993-0002)

**Record:** CW-1993-0002 (compiler id CWC-0458); case SWCUSTOD-029
**Title:** Delhi Woman v. Delhi Administration & Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 728/1991 / LAWS(SC)-1993-3-147
**Judgment:** 1993-03-19 (1993, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-08-21 (1990)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: PS Model Town; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, PS Model Town, Delhi Police; Police personnel, PS Model Town, Delhi Police; Police personnel, PS Model Town, Delhi Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court order (19 March 1993, text served at the primary source) directed Delhi Administration to pay Smt. Veer Bala Rs 3,00,000 within four weeks as immediate relief (Rs 50,000 each in fixed deposit for her two minor children, Rs 2,00,000 for maintenance/education; without prejudice to higher claims) for the death of her husband \[name withheld\] in police custody on the night of 21/22 August 1990 at PS Model Town, and recorded that prosecution sanctions would reach the CBI by 23.3.93 with charge-sheets to follow. The 1993 order names no officer. The CBI chargesheet (per Delhi HC 28 August 2001, Crl. A. 192/1995 etc.) framed ss.304/34 + 342/34 charges against \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\], and s.218/109 charges against \[name withheld\] and SDM R.S. Yadav; the trial court convicted \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\] (ss.342, 304-II/34) and Yadav (s.218); the High Court set all convictions aside and acquitted all of them, dismissing the State appeal (Crl. A. 18/1996). Later proceedings noted in the ledger: the Delhi High Court on 28 August 2001 set aside the related trial-court convictions and acquitted \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] of all charges (no conviction had been recorded against \[name withheld\], and the State appeal was dismissed); the compensation direction in this record stands on this judgment's own findings. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Taking into consideration all the facts on record, we are of the view that the Delhi Administration should give to the petitioner Smt. Veer Bala compensation of Rs. 3,00,000.00 within four weeks from today as an immediate measure.

**Sources (3):** [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=003991911100&Title=MRS.-VEER-BALA-Vs.-DELHI-ADMINISTRATION-AND-OTHERS); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177208/); [amnesty.org](https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa200261993en.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Delhi Woman v. Delhi Administration & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1993-03-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'LAWS(SC)-1993-3-147', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=003991911100&Title=MRS.-VEER-BALA-Vs.-DELHI-ADMINISTRATION-AND-OTHERS', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177208/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa200261993en.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC awarded Rs 3L compensation for Model Town custodial death; prosecution directed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1993-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1993-0002)

## Kashmere Gate Man vs State (Delhi Administration) (CW-1993-0004)

**Record:** CW-1993-0004 (compiler id CWC-0118); case DELHI-027
**Title:** Kashmere Gate Man vs State (Delhi Administration)
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Y.K. Sabharwal
**Case number / citation:** I (1995) ACC 432
**Judgment:** 1993-08-19 (1993, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-08-15 (1991)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Kashmere Gate; police station or unit: P.S. Kashmere Gate; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kashmere Gate man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court (Y.K. Sabharwal, J.) awarded Rs 20,000 (payable within one month) plus Rs 1,100 costs for the illegal detention of the wrong man for one month and nine days. Assistant Mistri a Kashmere Gate man was arrested on 15 August 1991 as the namesake proclaimed offender wanted since 1983 — though his father's name (not Ram Singh) and address differed from the charge-sheet — and, despite protesting from arrest and again on 16.8.1991, was refused bail by the Magistrate and once by the Sessions Court before another Sessions Judge granted bail (released 23.9.1991); a Magisterial enquiry (26.9.1992, with the unnamed 1983 Investigating Officer confirming he was not the man) proved the mistaken identity. The Court held the petitioner was deprived of liberty by the casual, irresponsible, careless and negligent acts of unnamed police officers who paid no heed to his protests, leaving the State free to fix responsibility, recover the award from officers at fault, and take lawful action against them. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Clearly, the petitioner was deprived of his liberty because of casual, irresponsible, careless and negligent acts of the Police Officers.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/317048/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Kashmere Gate Man vs State (Delhi Administration)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers', 'sections', 'court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1993-08-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 20,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'I (1995) ACC 432', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/317048/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; month-long detention of wrong man, Rs 20,000 + costs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1993-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1993-0004)

## Geeta and Anr. vs Lt. Governor and Ors. (CW-1998-0004)

**Record:** CW-1998-0004 (compiler id CWC-0110); case DELHI-019
**Title:** Geeta and Anr. vs Lt. Governor and Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Anil Dev Singh
**Case number / citation:** 2000 ACJ 109; 75 (1998) DLT 822
**Judgment:** 1998-08-18 (1998, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-08-29 (1996)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Sarojini Nagar; police station or unit: P.S. Sarojini Nagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304; Constitution Art 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, P.S. Sarojini Nagar (8 in record)
**Victims:** Sarojini Nagar man, age 22 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5.5 lakh (Rs 5,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court awarded Rs 5,50,000 to the widow and mother of 22-year-old a Sarojini Nagar man, who was tortured to death in Sarojini Nagar police custody. A Sarojini Nagar man, against whom there was no allegation of any criminal activity, was picked up on 29 August 1996 after his brother \[name withheld\] escaped from a police party; his body, bearing 51 injuries, was brought to Safdarjung Hospital the next day. The State admitted the custodial death and injuries, and an SDM Hauz Khas enquiry prima facie held eight policemen (respondents 3 to 10, arrested and challaned under Section 304 IPC) responsible. The Court deplored the continued preference for torture over scientific investigation and left the State free to recover the award from those found responsible. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is not the case of the respondents that when he was arrested he was having injuries on his person. No explanation has been rendered for fifty one injuries which were found on his person as a result of which he died in police custody.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1942298/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Geeta and Anr. vs Lt. Governor and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1998-08-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 550,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2000 ACJ 109; 75 (1998) DLT 822', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1942298/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC order verified on Indian Kanoon; admitted custodial torture-death, Rs 5.5 lakh awarded.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1998-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1998-0004)

## Pandav Nagar Man and Another vs Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (CW-1999-0008)

**Record:** CW-1999-0008 (compiler id CWC-0121); case DELHI-030
**Title:** Pandav Nagar Man and Another vs Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Anil Dev Singh
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1015/98 / 2000 III AD (Delhi) 474; 84 (2000) DLT 348
**Judgment:** 1999-10-11 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-11-29 (1993)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Pandav Nagar; police station or unit: Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi Police; Constable, Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi Police; Constable, Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi Police; Constable, Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi Police (4 in record)
**Victims:** Pandav Nagar man, age 21 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court awarded Rs 2 lakh for the custodial killing of 21-year-old a Pandav Nagar man at PS Patel Nagar. Picked up on 29 November 1993 for interrogation, he was beaten to death within about 90 minutes; constables dumped his body at DDU Hospital claiming he was found near a railway track, and the first post-mortem opined poisoning. An NHRC-appointed Additional Sessions Judge's enquiry demolished the cover stories through independent witnesses and held one ASI and three constables responsible, a finding the Court adopted. The Court held it undoubtedly a custodial death by third-degree torture and ordered compensation over and above the NHRC's Rs 50,000 interim award. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the circumstances, therefore, we have no manner of doubt that it is a case of custodial death.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/562113/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Pandav Nagar Man and Another vs Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1999-10-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2000 III AD (Delhi) 474; 84 (2000) DLT 348', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/562113/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** 90-minute custodial killing with railway-track cover story; Rs 2L over NHRC interim award.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1999-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0008)

## Phoolwati @ Phullo vs National Capital Territory of Delhi (CW-2000-0001)

**Record:** CW-2000-0001 (compiler id CWC-0120); case DELHI-029
**Title:** Phoolwati @ Phullo vs National Capital Territory of Delhi
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Anil Dev Singh
**Case number / citation:** 2000 II AD (Delhi) 537; 2000 CriLJ 1613; 84 (2000) DLT 177
**Judgment:** 2000-02-04 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-12-02 (1992)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Siraspur; police station or unit: Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 21; CrPC 176
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi Police; Sub-Inspector, Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi Police; SHO, Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi Police; Police personnel, Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi Police (7 in record)
**Victims:** Siraspur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court awarded Rs 3 lakh for the custodial death of a Siraspur man at PS Samaypur Badli. On 2 December 1992 a seven-man police party led by SI came looking for the victim's cousins, beat a Siraspur man with lathis at his Siraspur home and again at the police station; he died the next evening in custody at Hindu Rao Hospital of haemorrhagic shock from a fractured femur and multiple injuries. The SDM's Section 176 inquest held the death resulted from police beating, and the CBI chargesheeted seven policemen plus three private persons. The State offered no explanation for the injuries, and the Court held it vicariously liable under Article 21. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> From the perusal of the report of the S.D.M. it cannot be denied that the a Siraspur man died in police custody as a result of beating given by the police personnel.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/893577/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Phoolwati @ Phullo vs National Capital Territory of Delhi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-02-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2000 II AD (Delhi) 537; 2000 CriLJ 1613; 84 (2000) DLT 177', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/893577/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Lathi-beating custodial death; Rs 3L compensation, seven policemen CBI-chargesheeted.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2000-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0001)

## Deputy Commissioner of Police vs Jorawar Singh and Another (CW-2000-0013)

**Record:** CW-2000-0013 (compiler id CWC-0783); case GAP2-17-004
**Title:** Deputy Commissioner of Police vs Jorawar Singh and Another
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: R.S. Sodhi
**Case number / citation:** C.W.P. No. 2611 of 1999 / 2000 (iv) AD (Delhi) 873
**Judgment:** 2000-04-07 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: 9th Battalion, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Jorawar Singh (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court allowed the department's writ petition and restored the dismissal of Delhi Police constable Jorawar Singh, who had been dismissed on 29 April 1993 for habitual unauthorised absence after pleading guilty at the departmental enquiry. The Court held that the Supreme Court's decision in State of M.P. vs Harihar Gopal still held the field, that the two-Judge decision in Bakshish Singh was per incuriam on this point, and that treating the absence period as leave without pay was only for maintaining a correct service record and did not obliterate the dismissal. It found the termination suffered from no illegality, set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 22 January 1999 which had quashed the dismissal, and made the Rule absolute. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The order of the Tribunal dated 22nd January, 1999 in O.A. No. 901 of 1995 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the Rule made absolute.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1458205/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/920882/deputy-commissioner-of-police-appellant-hash-jorawar-singh-and-another-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Deputy Commissioner of Police vs Jorawar Singh and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-04-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2000 (iv) AD (Delhi) 873', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1458205/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/920882/deputy-commissioner-of-police-appellant-hash-jorawar-singh-and-another-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC restored constable's dismissal for habitual absence; internal-discipline matter, no civilian victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2000-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0013)

## Delhi Man vs State of Delhi and Ors. (CW-2000-0016)

**Record:** CW-2000-0016 (compiler id CWC-1166); case GAP3-38-004
**Title:** Delhi Man vs State of Delhi and Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: R.S. Sodhi
**Case number / citation:** 2001 ACJ 2033
**Judgment:** 2000-11-17 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-08-27 (1994)
**Place:** Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Police Station Seelampur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 176
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man, age 68 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3.5 lakh (Rs 3,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court (R.S. Sodhi, J.) on 17 November 2000 allowed the writ petition of Iqubal Begam and directed the State to pay Rs 3,50,000 as compensation for the custodial death of her 68-year-old husband \[name withheld\] at Police Station Seelampur on 27/28 August 1994. The court held on the Section 176 CrPC magisterial-inquiry record, DD entries, MLC and post-mortem evidence of seven ante-mortem blunt-force abrasions that the deceased remained in continuous police custody from 7.50 p.m. until declared dead at 00.40 hrs, and that inflicted brutality had precipitated his fatal cardiac condition. It held the State and its functionaries had caused the death in custody in a manner the law has repeatedly deprecated, and found the Rs 50,000 earlier paid under NHRC orders grossly inadequate but deductible. The State's appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench on 22 May 2004, leaving the award intact.

> Therefore, from material on record it is clear that the death of the husband of the petitioner, a Delhi man, can be termed as 'custodial death' and even if the deceased was suffering from heart problem, the brutality inflicted upon him only precipitated the condition which proved fatal.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/938973/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/610196/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Delhi Man vs State of Delhi and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-11-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 350,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2001 ACJ 2033', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/938973/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/610196/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held death in Seelampur custody proved, ordered Rs 3.5 lakh compensation; appeal dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2000-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0016)

## Government of NCT of Delhi vs Nasiruddin (father of deceased \[name withheld\]. Tihar Man) (CW-2000-0009)

**Record:** CW-2000-0009 (compiler id CWC-0671); case GAP7-006
**Title:** Government of NCT of Delhi vs Nasiruddin (father of deceased \[name withheld\]. Tihar Man)
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Arijit Pasayat; D.K. Jain
**Case number / citation:** 2002 ACJ 1530
**Judgment:** 2000-11-27 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-07-13 (1996)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Tihar; police station or unit: Tihar Jail; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Tihar man, age 21 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. A Tihar man, about 21, was picked up by police on 15 April 1996, lodged in Tihar Jail and died there on 13 July 1996 with 15 ante-mortem injuries; a government medical board conceded several injuries could not have been self-inflicted. The State claimed he was a violent psychiatric patient injured while being restrained. The Division Bench rejected that plea, holding doctors examining him over 8-13 July 1996 could not have missed the injuries, and affirmed State liability in public law for the custodial death. It reduced compensation from Rs.2.5 lakh to Rs.2 lakh (Rs.1,25,000 already paid). Erring officials were not individually named. LPA against W.P.(Crl.) No.585/1996 judgment dated 16.12.1997. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> there can be no doubt in view of background facts highlighted above about the State's liability to pay the compensation.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/810570/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Government of NCT of Delhi vs Nasiruddin (father of deceased \[name withheld\]. Tihar Man)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-11-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2002 ACJ 1530', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/810570/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Custodial-assault death affirmed on LPA; State liability upheld, compensation fixed at Rs.2L.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2000-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0009)

## Delhi Police Constable and others v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (CW-2001-0006)

**Record:** CW-2001-0006 (compiler id CWC-0482); case SWCUSTOD-014
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable and others v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: M. Khan; Sharda Aggarwal
**Case number / citation:** 93 (2001) DLT 563; 2002 (61) DRJ 583
**Judgment:** 2001-08-21 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-01-01 (1993)
**Place:** Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 366; IPC 376; IPC 506
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ of two Delhi Police constables dismissed from service in July 1993 without enquiry under Article 311(2)(b) on a gang-rape charge (FIR 289/93). After the Trial Magistrate discharged them in 1996 for want of prima facie evidence, they sought reinstatement invoking Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. The Court held a pre-trial discharge is not an acquittal and Rule 12 was inapplicable, sustaining the CAT dismissal of their plea. Caveat: the dismissal was upheld purely on this Rule 12 legal point; there is no merits finding on the rape charge itself. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We accordingly hold that order of discharge in a criminal case does not amount to an order of acquittal.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1442362/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable and others v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'subcategory'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-08-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '93 (2001) DLT 563; 2002 (61) DRJ 583', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1442362/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writ on Rule 12 point (discharge is not acquittal); dismissal stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2001-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0006)

## Ex. Constable Jal Singh vs Commissioner of Police and Others (CW-2001-0016)

**Record:** CW-2001-0016 (compiler id CWC-0780); case GAP2-17-001
**Title:** Ex. Constable Jal Singh vs Commissioner of Police and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Sharda Aggarwal
**Case number / citation:** 2002(63) DRJ 198
**Judgment:** 2001-09-19 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-05-08 (1991)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Jal Singh (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Delhi Police constable Jal Singh remained unauthorisedly absent from 8 May 1991 to 26 July 1991 despite two absentee notices, and had 40 prior unauthorised absences on record. A departmental enquiry held the misconduct charge proved and he was dismissed on 17 July 1992; his departmental appeal and OA No.1529/93 before the Central Administrative Tribunal both failed. The court held that regularising the absence as leave without pay was only for maintaining a correct service record and did not obliterate the dismissal, following Harihar Gopal. It found no illegality in the dismissal, dismissed the Article 226 writ petition, and upheld the Tribunal order dated 14 July 1999. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> we are of the opinion that the order dismissal of the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/398507/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/703602/ex-constable-jal-singh-vs-commissioner-police)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Ex. Constable Jal Singh vs Commissioner of Police and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-09-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2002(63) DRJ 198', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/398507/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/703602/ex-constable-jal-singh-vs-commissioner-police', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi Police constable's dismissal for habitual unauthorised absence upheld; writ dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2001-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0016)

## Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India and Ors. (CW-2002-0019)

**Record:** CW-2002-0019 (compiler id CWC-1168); case GAP3-38-006
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India and Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S.B. Sinha; A.K. Sikri
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 7007 of 2001
**Judgment:** 2002-03-16 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-08-23 (1996)
**Place:** Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: III Bn DAP, Patiala House Courts; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 221; IPC 222; IPC 223
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, III Bn DAP, Delhi Police (Patiala House Courts Gaddi Guard); Constable, III Bn DAP, Delhi Police (Patiala House Courts Gaddi Guard); Head Constable, III Bn DAP, Delhi Police (Patiala House Courts Gaddi Guard) (3 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court Division Bench (S.B. Sinha, C.J. and A.K. Sikri, J.) on 16 March 2002 dismissed the writ petition against the CAT order in OA No. 2430 of 1998 and left intact the removal of Delhi Armed Police constables and \[name withheld\] for gross negligence that allowed undertrial prisoner Mohd. Salim to escape from the Patiala House Courts Dakhila gate on 23 August 1996. The court held the escape-specific Rule 29 enquiry governed rather than a Rule 15 preliminary enquiry, that due procedure was followed with six prosecution and five defence witnesses examined, and that the admitted escape at the petitioner's searching/frisking post proved dereliction. It declined to interfere with the quantum of punishment, which had been considered at all levels. The removal from service therefore stood; the supervising Head Constable's increment stop was also left undisturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The fact that the under trial prisoner has escaped from the custody stood admitted and the fact that the petitioner and the other delinquent officers were do duty was also admitted.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/347357/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/920153/pdf/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['subcategory'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-03-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'CWP No. 7007 of 2001', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/347357/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/920153/pdf/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writ; removal of 2 constables for UTP escape at Patiala House stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0019)

## Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs Delhi Police Constable (CW-2002-0020)

**Record:** CW-2002-0020 (compiler id CWC-1165); case GAP3-38-003
**Title:** Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs Delhi Police Constable
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S.B. Sinha; A.K. Sikri
**Case number / citation:** 100(2002)DLT385
**Judgment:** 2002-04-11 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 354
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court Division Bench (S.B. Sinha, C.J. and A.K. Sikri, J.) on 11 April 2002 allowed the Government's writ petition arising from CAT OA No. 1161/1996 and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, leaving intact the dismissal of Delhi Police constable for outraging the modesty of the survivor at her jhuggi and threatening her husband. The court held Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 bars fresh departmental punishment after a judicial acquittal but does not vitiate a dismissal already imposed on 15 January 1991 before the acquittal, and that a pending appeal does not keep punishment under animated suspension. It further held the criminal acquittal was only on benefit of doubt, falling within the exception in Rule 12(a). The dismissal therefore stood. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and by an order dated 15th January 1991, a penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/758817/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs Delhi Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-04-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '100(2002)DLT385', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/758817/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC allowed Govt writ, set aside CAT order; dismissal for outraging modesty stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0020)

## Delhi Police Constable (No. 1822/W) vs Union of India and Ors. (CW-2002-0021)

**Record:** CW-2002-0021 (compiler id CWC-1169); case GAP3-38-007
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable (No. 1822/W) vs Union of India and Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S. B. Sinha; A. K. Sikri
**Case number / citation:** CWP arising from CAT OA No. 1372/1999 (writ number not stated) / 99(2002)DLT715; 2002(64)DRJ260
**Judgment:** 2002-04-11 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-03-01 (1998)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: PS Punjabi Bagh; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (No. 1822/W), PS Punjabi Bagh, West District, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable of PS Punjabi Bagh was dismissed on 14.11.1998 after a departmental enquiry found he consumed liquor on duty at a picket on Road No. 77 on 1.3.1998 and assaulted fellow Constable, causing simple blunt injuries. His departmental appeal and CAT Original Application were dismissed, and he challenged the dismissal under Article 226. The Court held the liquor-taking and assault proved on preponderance of probability on the victim's categorical evidence, the SI's report and both MLCs, rejecting pleas of non-examination of doctors and Rule 15 violation. Finding no case for interference, the Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the dismissal from service intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Although the doctors had not been examined, the fact that the petitioner had taken liquor and assaulted the said a Delhi man, has been proved.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1933258/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable (No. 1822/W) vs Union of India and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-04-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '99(2002)DLT715; 2002(64)DRJ260', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1933258/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC dismissed writ; dismissal of drunk-on-duty constable for assault upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0021)

## Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and Anr. vs Union of India and Ors. (CW-2002-0024)

**Record:** CW-2002-0024 (compiler id CWC-1164); case GAP3-38-002
**Title:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and Anr. vs Union of India and Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S.B. Sinha; A.K. Sikri
**Case number / citation:** (2011) 182 DLT 350
**Judgment:** 2002-05-31 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-09-30 (1993)
**Place:** Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 384; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police; Head Constable, Delhi Police; Constable (Driver), Delhi Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court Division Bench (S.B. Sinha, C.J. and A.K. Sikri, J.) on 31 May 2002 dismissed the writ petition against the CAT order in OA No. 2696 of 2000 and left intact the dismissal of Delhi Police personnel for forcibly snatching Rs 40,000 from train passenger a Delhi resident in the wee hours of 30 September 1993. The court held the dismissal of 2 December 1998 had attained finality before the criminal acquittal of 7 December 1999 and could not be reopened on that subsequent event, and that simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings are not barred. It held the inquiry evidence, including recoveries of Rs 13,000 at the instance of each delinquent and the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, sustained the charges on preponderance of probability. The court found no case for interference under its limited judicial review jurisdiction and dismissed the petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the instant case, the amount extracted from the complainant had been recovered from each of the three delinquent officials to the extent of rs. 13,000/-. Such recoveries were made at the instance of he delinquent officials themselves.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1595395/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and Anr. vs Union of India and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-05-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2011) 182 DLT 350', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1595395/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writ, upheld dismissal of policemen for snatching Rs 40,000 despite later acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0024)

## Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector v. State (CW-2002-0003)

**Record:** CW-2002-0003 (compiler id CWC-0538); case SWEXTORT-001
**Title:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector v. State
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: R.S. Sodhi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1978 / (2002) 07 DEL CK 0047
**Judgment:** 2002-07-02 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1975-08-06 (1975)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Lahori Gate Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; IPC 342; IPC 384; PC Act 1947 s.5(2); PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, P.S. Lahori Gate, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man; Delhi man; Delhi man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Assistant Sub-Inspector (pursued by his legal representative after his death), upholding his conviction by the Special Judge in Corruption Case No. 55/76. On the night of 6/7 August 1975, the ASI with four constables picked up three residents of Haider Kuli on the false pretext of arrest under the Defence of India Rules, confined them at Lahori Gate Police Station and demanded Rs 6,000 for their release, collecting Rs 800. The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence and held the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 161 and 384 IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, one year under Section 342 IPC, and fines of Rs 500 stood affirmed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I find that there is no material contradiction which can lead to the conclusion that PW-7, PW-8 and PW-13 are not trustworthy witnesses. If the statement of these witnesses is believed, I find that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1954751/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/385328/manphool-singh-appellant-hash-state-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector v. State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2002) 07 DEL CK 0047', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2002-07-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2002) 07 DEL CK 0047', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1954751/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/385328/manphool-singh-appellant-hash-state-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC (R.S. Sodhi J.) dismissed Criminal Appeal 102/1978, upholding ASI 's conviction and 2-year RI for extortion, bribery and wrongful confinement.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0003)

## Delhi Police Head Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (CW-2002-0026)

**Record:** CW-2002-0026 (compiler id CWC-1163); case GAP3-38-001
**Title:** Delhi Police Head Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S.B. Sinha; A.K. Sikri
**Case number / citation:** CWP Nos. 2537 and 2546 of 2001 / (2002) 07 DEL CK 0066
**Judgment:** 2002-07-31 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-12-29 (1996)
**Place:** Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: PCR Van DL-1A-0407 (Z-28); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Delhi Police Act 1978 s.21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, PCR Van DL-1A-0407 (Z-28), Delhi Police; Head Constable, PCR Van DL-1A-0407 (Z-28), Delhi Police; Constable, PCR Van DL-1A-0407 (Z-28), Delhi Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court Division Bench (S.B. Sinha, C.J. and A.K. Sikri, J.) on 31 July 2002 dismissed the writ petitions of three Delhi Police PCR personnel and left intact their dismissal from service for extorting 35 pounds from a British-passport holder near IGI Airport on the night of 29/30 December 1996. The court held departmental proceedings require only preponderance of probability, not criminal-trial proof, and that the unavailable complainant's statement could be taken on record under Rule 16(iii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1980. It held the petitioners' undisputed presence on PCR duty at the site corroborated the extortion charge and found no illegality in the Tribunal's order. The dismissals ordered on 2 December 1998, affirmed on appeal and by the CAT, therefore stood.

> In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1038914/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 33
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Head Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-07-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2002) 07 DEL CK 0066', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1038914/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writs, upheld dismissal of 3 PCR policemen for extorting £35 from tourist.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0026)

## Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India and Ors. (CW-2002-0028)

**Record:** CW-2002-0028 (compiler id CWC-1167); case GAP3-38-005
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India and Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Anil Dev Singh; Mukul Mudgal
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 4775 of 2002 / \[2003(96)FLR621\]
**Judgment:** 2002-08-19 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-01-01 (1993)
**Place:** Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: E Block, Security Lines; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 420
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, E Block, Security Lines, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi resident; New Delhi resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court on 19 August 2002 dismissed the writ petition of ex-constable \[name withheld\] against the CAT order in OA No. 995/2002 and left intact his dismissal from Delhi Police for taking illegal gratification in 1993-1994: Rs 20,000 and Rs 5,000 for securing an MCD teacher appointment for \[name withheld\], and Rs 20,000 from a New Delhi resident for getting his son appointed a constable. The court held the disciplinary and appellate authorities' view could not be faulted and that a policeman indulging in lawlessness shakes public faith in government machinery. It held the later criminal acquittal in FIR No. 99/96 (Section 420 IPC, PS Tilak Marg) was on compromise, not merits, so it did not entitle him to reversal of the departmental punishment, and Rule 12 was inapplicable where punishment preceded the acquittal. The dismissal ordered on 20 May 1999 therefore stood. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> After recording the evidence the Enquiry Officer held the charges to be proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, on May 20, 1999, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/804850/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/703941/ex-constable-vinod-kumar-vs-secretary-ministry)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-08-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '\[2003(96)FLR621\]', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/804850/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/703941/ex-constable-vinod-kumar-vs-secretary-ministry', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writ; dismissal for taking job-related bribes stands despite compromise acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0028)

## Rajouri Garden Man vs Union of India and Ors. (CW-2002-0005)

**Record:** CW-2002-0005 (compiler id CWC-0109); case DELHI-018
**Title:** Rajouri Garden Man vs Union of India and Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S.B. Sinha; A.K. Sikri
**Case number / citation:** AIR 2003 Delhi 50; 100 (2002) DLT 721
**Judgment:** 2002-09-30 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-12-10 (1992)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Rajouri Garden; police station or unit: P.S. Rajouri Garden; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** MV Act 1988 s.185; Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, P.S. Rajouri Garden; Constable, P.S. Rajouri Garden (2 in record)
**Victims:** Rajouri Garden man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court held that the Delhi Police violated a Rajouri Garden man's fundamental right to life under Article 21, awarding his widow \[name withheld\] 2 lakh in public-law damages. Sharma, arrested under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act after a scooter accident on 10 December 1992 left him with a bleeding head wound, was kept in the Rajouri Garden lock-up overnight; when he complained of severe headache at 12:30 AM he was shown to the same doctor but neither hospitalised nor treated further, and he died that afternoon after being bailed out in the morning. The Court held the police failed in their statutory duty of care toward an injured arrestee who ought to have been hospitalised or released, and left the widow free to claim further damages by civil suit. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where the petitioner has been able to establish that there has been a violation of the deceased's Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, thus, damages in public law remedy can be awarded. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the respondent should pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the petitioner herein with the liberty to her to file an appropriate suit for damages, if she is so advised.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1930290/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 35
**display title redacted:** Rajouri Garden Man vs Union of India and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-09-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 2003 Delhi 50; 100 (2002) DLT 721', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1930290/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; Art.21 violation + public-law damages for custodial death (operative figure per reported citation).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0005)

## New Delhi Woman vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi (CW-2003-0013)

**Record:** CW-2003-0013 (compiler id CWC-0108); case DELHI-017
**Title:** New Delhi Woman vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Vikramajit Sen
**Case number / citation:** 108 (2003) DLT 718; 2004 (72) DRJ 644
**Judgment:** 2003-12-19 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-04-07 (2000)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi (Paharganj); police station or unit: Delhi Police (Paharganj); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Delhi Police (Paharganj); Head Constable, Delhi Police (Paharganj) (4 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court (Vikramajit Sen, J.) awarded Rs 5,00,000 for the custodial death of three-wheeler driver \[name withheld\], arrested in a traffic challan case on 7 April 2000 and dead the next afternoon, holding blatant and blameworthy non-compliance with the D.K. Basu imperatives for which each respondent was jointly and severally answerable. Though the inquest found no manhandling and death by cardiac failure, the Court held the failure to inform his wife — despite her rounds of the police station, police post and PCR — blameworthy, since informing the family could have flagged his bypass-surgery history and secured surety for bail. Rs 4,00,000 was to be paid by the State (respondents 1-2) and Rs 25,000 each by respondents 3 to 6, with Rs 10,000 in costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I am satisfied that there has been blatant and blameworthy non-compliance with the imperatives enunciated in D.K. Basu's case, for which each of the Respondents is jointly as well as severally answerable and liable.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1570002/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** New Delhi Woman vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-12-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '108 (2003) DLT 718; 2004 (72) DRJ 644', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1570002/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** D.K. Basu violations caused custodial death; Rs 5L + costs verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0013)

## State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) vs Smt. Iqbal Begum (CW-2004-0001)

**Record:** CW-2004-0001 (compiler id CWC-0104); case DELHI-013
**Title:** State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) vs Smt. Iqbal Begum
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Dalveer Bhandari; R.C. Jain
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal against Single Judge writ judgment (2004 CriLJ 3092) / 2004 CriLJ 3092
**Judgment:** 2004-05-22 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-08-27 (1994)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Seelampur; police station or unit: PS Seelampur, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (1 in record)
**Victims:** Seelampur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3.5 lakh (Rs 3,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court Division Bench (Dalveer Bhandari, J.) dismissed the State's appeal as devoid of merit and upheld Rs. 3,50,000 ex-gratia compensation for the custodial death of a Seelampur man Summoned to PS Seelampur at 5 PM on 27 August 1994 and locked up at 7:50 PM, he died during interrogation the same night with multiple ante-mortem injuries and was brought dead to hospital at 00:40 AM; a Section 176 CrPC magisterial inquiry confirmed death in police custody. The Court recorded that the State and its functionaries caused the death in custody, holding the brutality precipitated his fatal condition despite a heart ailment, and rebuked the State for appealing a just and reasonable award instead of graciously accepting it.

> From the entire material on record it is clear that the death of the husband of the respondent can be clearly termed as custodial death and even if the deceased was suffering from the heart problem, the brutality inflicted upon him only precipitated the condition which proved fatal.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/610196/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/378848/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-smt-iqbal-begum/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) vs Smt. Iqbal Begum
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2004-05-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 350,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2004 CriLJ 3092', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/610196/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/378848/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-smt-iqbal-begum/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: State appeal dismissed; Rs 3.5 lakh custodial-death compensation upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2004-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0001)

## Delhi Police Constable (Executive) and others vs NCT of Delhi and Others (CW-2005-0012)

**Record:** CW-2005-0012 (compiler id CWC-1173); case GAP3-39-004
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable (Executive) and others vs NCT of Delhi and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Mukundakam Sharma; Rekha Sharma
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 3494 of 2005 / (2005) 05 DEL CK 0262
**Judgment:** 2005-05-17 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (Executive), Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable (Executive) \[name withheld\] was dismissed on 10.11.2001 after departmental proceedings found he had secured enrolment in the Delhi Police with forged high-school and intermediate certificates showing date of birth 02.01.1971, though Board records and his genuine character certificate showed 01.04.1969, and had withdrawn the originals from his character roll in 1995 on a false pretext. His departmental appeal and CAT Original Application were dismissed. The Court held the forgery proved by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad documentary evidence, rejected procedural challenges on non-supply of documents and non-examination of witnesses, and found no infirmity in the Tribunal order. The writ petition was dismissed and the dismissal from service stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/261809/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/921255/ex-constable-vikas-kumar-no-1351w-appellant-hash-nct-of-delhi-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable (Executive) and others vs NCT of Delhi and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-05-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2005) 05 DEL CK 0262', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/261809/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/921255/ex-constable-vikas-kumar-no-1351w-appellant-hash-nct-of-delhi-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; dismissal for forged enrolment certificates and false DOB upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2005-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0012)

## Surender Kumar vs Commissioner of Police & Ors. (CW-2005-0014)

**Record:** CW-2005-0014 (compiler id CWC-0788); case GAP2-18-005
**Title:** Surender Kumar vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Mukundakam Sharma; Sanjiv Khanna
**Case number / citation:** CW No. 10451 of 2004 / (2005) 123 DLT 185 : (2005) 83 DRJ 703
**Judgment:** 2005-07-25 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Delhi Police Act 1978 s.23; Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980 r.24
**Officers (gated display forms):** Surender Kumar (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition of Delhi Police constable Surender Kumar and upheld his removal from service for habitual unauthorised absence, holding it proved that he absented himself on five occasions between June 1997 and June 1999 totalling 137 days, on top of 34 earlier absences that had drawn warnings and censure. The Court rejected his illness plea, noting he produced no medical certificates for four of the five spells and did not respond to directions to report for medical examination. It held judicial review of the quantum of punishment is extremely limited, that removal was not ex-facie disproportionate, and described him as a habitual absentee of incorrigible type in a disciplined force. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is quite clear that the petitioner is a habitual absentee of incorrigible type.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/914874/surender-kumar-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-others/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/678626/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/702126/surender-kumar-vs-commissioner-police-ors)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Surender Kumar vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-07-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2005) 123 DLT 185 : (2005) 83 DRJ 703', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/914874/surender-kumar-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/678626/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/702126/surender-kumar-vs-commissioner-police-ors', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld removal of constable for 137 days' absence over five spells; internal-discipline matter.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2005-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0014)

## Delhi Man vs State and Others (CW-2005-0018)

**Record:** CW-2005-0018 (compiler id CWC-1171); case GAP3-39-002
**Title:** Delhi Man vs State and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: R. S. Sodhi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Crl.) No. 305 of 2005 / (2005) 09 DEL CK 0108
**Judgment:** 2005-09-28 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-10-03 (2004)
**Place:** North Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: PS Bara Hindu Rao; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 506; IPC 34; CrPC 107; CrPC 151
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Delhi man alleged he was picked up on 3.10.2004 by two PS Bara Hindu Rao officials and mercilessly beaten and tortured in custody, despite an earlier High Court protection order against police harassment. The status report showed he was arrested by SI under Sections 107/151 CrPC without sufficient reasons, was not medically examined on lock-up entry, and the Body Inspection Memo showed no injury while the hospital MLC recorded beating in police custody with bruises, contusion and swelling. The Court held a prima facie case of police brutality and custodial torture was made out. It directed registration of an FIR to be investigated by the District Investigating Unit (North) and Rs 50,000 ex gratia ad interim compensation recoverable from the delinquent policeman, expressly without prejudice to the merits. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In that view of the matter, I direct that an FIR be registered and investigation be carried out by the District Investigating Unit (North) and since, prima facie, a case of police brutality and custodial torture is made out, I direct the State to pay by way of an ex gratia ad interim compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) which may be recovered from the delinquent policeman.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1277521/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/910447/akhtar-parvez-vs-state-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Delhi Man vs State and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-09-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2005) 09 DEL CK 0108', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1277521/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/910447/akhtar-parvez-vs-state-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Prima facie custodial torture; HC ordered FIR, DIU probe and Rs 50,000 interim compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2005-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0018)

## Delhi Man and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others (CW-2005-0019)

**Record:** CW-2005-0019 (compiler id CWC-1170); case GAP3-39-001
**Title:** Delhi Man and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Ramesh Chand Jain
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 of 2005 / (2006) 126 DLT 653; (2006) 142 PLR 70
**Judgment:** 2005-12-20 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police; Head Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police (5 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man, age 32 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3.5 lakh (Rs 3,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. A Delhi man, aged about 32, who ran an STD booth in Delhi, died of injuries caused by five named Delhi Police officials while in their custody; the respondent State did not dispute the custodial death and stated the officials were facing trial before the Additional Sessions Judge. His widow, two minor daughters and two brothers moved the High Court under Article 226 after the Supreme Court dismissed their petition with liberty to approach it. Applying Nilabati Behera and successor decisions, the Court held the State vicariously liable in public law to compensate the legal heirs. It awarded Rs 3,50,000 to the widow and two minor children (Rs 50,000 to the widow, Rs 3 lakh in FDRs for the children), leaving the State at liberty to recover the amount from the delinquent officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> there is no denial of the legal position that the state under public law is vicariously liable to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased who has met the custodial death at the hands of official of the State

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/425502/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/907952/rekha-and-others-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-others/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1560757/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Delhi Man and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-12-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 350,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2006) 126 DLT 653; (2006) 142 PLR 70', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/425502/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/907952/rekha-and-others-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1560757/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Admitted custodial death; HC awarded Rs 3.5 lakh compensation, State free to recover from officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2005-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0019)

## Om Pal Singh vs Union of India & Ors. (CW-2006-0021)

**Record:** CW-2006-0021 (compiler id CWC-0789); case GAP2-18-006
**Title:** Om Pal Singh vs Union of India & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Mukundakam Sharma; Sanjiv Khanna
**Case number / citation:** Writ petition (OA 2098/2001 lineage); 2007(1) SLJ 502 (Delhi) / 2007(1) SLJ 502 (Delhi); LAWS(DLH)-2006-3-214
**Judgment:** 2006-03-07 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-02-10 (1999)
**Place:** Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980 r.16
**Officers (gated display forms):** Om Pal Singh (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition of Delhi Police constable Om Pal Singh and sustained his removal from service for wilfully absenting himself from duty from 10 February 1999 without leave application or medical papers, ignoring absentee notices and a direction to undergo medical examination, against a background of 13 earlier absences for which he had been reprimanded. The Court held the ex-parte enquiry complied with Rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, rejected the departmental-bias challenge, and upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 16. It found no merit in the challenge to the removal penalty or the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of OA 2098/2001. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> He did not cross-examine the witnesses, file any written statement or give his defense against allegations made against him. There is no allegation that procedure as prescribed in Rule 16 has not been followed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/308440/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=106002994000&title=om-pal-singh-vs-unionof-india)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 36
**display title redacted:** Om Pal Singh vs Union of India & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-03-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2007(1) SLJ 502 (Delhi); LAWS(DLH)-2006-3-214', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/308440/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=106002994000&title=om-pal-singh-vs-unionof-india', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld removal of constable for wilful absence from Feb 1999; internal-discipline matter.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0021)

## Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs Delhi Armed Police Constable (CW-2006-0023)

**Record:** CW-2006-0023 (compiler id CWC-0909); case GAP2-58-002
**Title:** Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs Delhi Armed Police Constable
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. B. Sinha; P. P. Naolekar
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 7488 of 2004 / (2006) 4 SCC 265
**Judgment:** 2006-04-05 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-06-22 (1997)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Vijay Ghat Armoury, Delhi Armed Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 311(2)(b); Evidence Act s.25; Evidence Act s.26; CrPC s.162; Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1987 r.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. \[name withheld\], a Delhi Armed Police constable enrolled in 1994, was implicated by co-accused confessions and his own custodial confession in the theft of two revolvers and a pistol from the Vijay Ghat Armoury while on sentry duty on the night of 22-23 June 1997; he was discharged in the criminal case for want of evidence beyond confessions. The Deputy Commissioner of Police dismissed him without enquiry under the Article 311(2)(b) proviso, but the CAT and the Delhi High Court set the dismissal aside. The Supreme Court held that criminal discharge does not bar departmental action and that Evidence Act Sections 25-26 do not apply to disciplinary proceedings, set aside the Tribunal and High Court judgments, and restored the dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The fact that the respondent as an accused in the aforementioned case made a confession and had pointed out the place wherefrom he allegedly had stolen two revolvers and one pistol, has, thus, not been disputed.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1353031/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/658935/commissioner-police-new-delhi-vs-narender-singh/); [bnblegal.com](https://bnblegal.com/landmark/commissioner-police-new-delhi-v-narender-singh/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs Delhi Armed Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-04-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2006) 4 SCC 265', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1353031/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/658935/commissioner-police-new-delhi-vs-narender-singh/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://bnblegal.com/landmark/commissioner-police-new-delhi-v-narender-singh/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; dismissal of DAP constable for armoury theft restored.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0023)

## Delhi Police Inspector vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others (CW-2006-0029)

**Record:** CW-2006-0029 (compiler id CWC-1174); case GAP3-39-005
**Title:** Delhi Police Inspector vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Manmohan Sarin; Vipin Sanghi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 3312 of 2006 / LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-33
**Judgment:** 2006-11-15 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980 r.8(d)(ii)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Delhi Police; Head Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Inspector faced departmental proceedings on the charge that two constables under him, acting on his sister-in-law's complaint, dispossessed shopkeeper \[name withheld\] of his shop by removing his goods and putting her lock on it, without any DD entry or registered case. The enquiry held the misconduct proved and the disciplinary authority on 21.3.2000 imposed forfeiture of two years approved service with pay reduction (the same order also punished Head Constable and Constable \[name withheld\]); his appeal, OA and restoration pleas all failed. The Court held the petitioner could not disown his subordinates' acts and sustained the misconduct finding and forfeiture. It struck only the direction postponing future increments as contrary to Rule 8(d)(ii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, and otherwise dismissed the writ.

> we are unable to agree with the petitioner that there was no misconduct committed by the petitioner and he could not be held liable for the acts of his subordinates.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/457839/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/902156/ram-janam-singh-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Inspector vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-11-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-33', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/457839/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/902156/ram-janam-singh-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Misconduct finding sustained; forfeiture of 2 yrs approved service upheld, increment bar struck.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0029)

## Parveen Kumar vs Commissioner of Police and Others (CW-2007-0026)

**Record:** CW-2007-0026 (compiler id CWC-0786); case GAP2-18-003
**Title:** Parveen Kumar vs Commissioner of Police and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Manmohan Sarin; S.L. Bhayana
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 2295 of 2007 / (2007) 98 DRJ 433 : (2008) 1 ILR Delhi 168
**Judgment:** 2007-07-13 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-09-05 (2003)
**Place:** Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.311(2)(b); IPC 395
**Officers (gated display forms):** Parveen Kumar (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition of Delhi Police constable Parveen Kumar and upheld his dismissal from service under Article 311(2)(b) for grave criminal misconduct, including complicity with gangster Vikrant @ Vicky in dacoity and robbery and involvement in numerous robbery, dacoity, murder and attempt-to-murder cases across Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The Court held the decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry was based on material record and not conjecture, since as a desperate and dangerous person with criminal associates, witnesses would not muster courage to depose against him for fear of reprisal. It found no infirmity in the disciplinary authority's dismissal order dated 20 September 2003 or the Tribunal's orders and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> If the law keeper becomes lawbreaker, quick and expedient action ought to be taken, to maintain transparency, accountability and above all to maintain public trust and faith in the Police.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/905682/parveen-kumar-appellant-hash-commissioner-of-police-and-others-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=107002341100&title=parveen-kumar-vs-commissioner-of-police); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/713870/parveen-kumar-vs-commissioner-police-ors)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Parveen Kumar vs Commissioner of Police and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-07-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2007) 98 DRJ 433 : (2008) 1 ILR Delhi 168', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/905682/parveen-kumar-appellant-hash-commissioner-of-police-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=107002341100&title=parveen-kumar-vs-commissioner-of-police', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/713870/parveen-kumar-vs-commissioner-police-ors', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld Art.311(2)(b) dismissal of constable involved in dacoity/robbery/murder cases with a gangster.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0026)

## State vs Delhi Police SHO (later Assistant Commissioner of Police) and others (CW-2008-0018)

**Record:** CW-2008-0018 (compiler id CWC-1172); case GAP3-39-003
**Title:** State vs Delhi Police SHO (later Assistant Commissioner of Police) and others
**Court:** Delhi High Court
**Case number / citation:** Death Sentence Reference with connected Criminal Appeal (numbers unverified) / 153 (2008) DLT 693
**Judgment:** 2008-03-05 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-08-24 (1987)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: PS Vivek Vihar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO (later Assistant Commissioner of Police), PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 8 yrs; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. After Constable of PS Vivek Vihar was stabbed on 16.8.1987, police detained family members and neighbours, and on 24.8.1987 a Delhi man and \[name withheld\] were brought to the station where SHO and others at his instance severely beat them; a Delhi man died the next day at LNJP Hospital and an SDM inquest indicted the officers. The trial court (SC No. 01/2006, ASJ Karkardooma, December 2006) convicted \[name withheld\] under Sections 302/342/120-B IPC and sentenced him to death. The High Court declined the death reference, holding murderous intent not proved but sustaining culpability for the homicidal custodial death, and convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC with 8 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs 2,00,000 fine payable to the deceased's mother \[name withheld\]. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on 12.11.2009 (Crl.A. Nos. 1440-1441/2008). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> RE-SOURCE: current quote matches SC judgment para 1 recital, not the cited HC judgment; replace with a verbatim passage from the HC 05.03.2008 text once opened

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/387672/pdf/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/663097/rp-tyagi-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1316909/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** null (must be set from HC text)
**display title redacted:** State vs Delhi Police SHO (later Assistant Commissioner of Police) and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-03-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '153 (2008) DLT 693', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/387672/pdf/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/663097/rp-tyagi-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1316909/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Death ref declined; HC convicted SHO of custodial death under IPC 304-II, 8 yrs RI + Rs 2 lakh fine.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2008-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0018)

## Delhi Police Head Constable vs State of NCT of Delhi (CW-2008-0019)

**Record:** CW-2008-0019 (compiler id CWC-1114); case GAP3-129-002
**Title:** Delhi Police Head Constable vs State of NCT of Delhi
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. B. Sinha; Harjit Singh Bedi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 40 of 2007) / Delhi Man vs State of NCT of Delhi, decided 14 March 2008
**Judgment:** 2008-03-14 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: P.S. Kashmere Gate, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 279; IPC 304A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Delhi Police, P.S. Kashmere Gate (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man; Delhi man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Delhi Police Head Constable against his conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for driving a police mini-truck over the Ring Road divider into oncoming traffic, killing pillion rider a Delhi man The Court held the rash act was clearly not within the colour of duty, so neither Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act nor sanction pleas barred the prosecution. It sustained the conviction (six months' imprisonment plus fine as modified by the High Court) but, noting twenty years of litigation and an otherwise good career, directed release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellant had already been dismissed from service on account of the conviction. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We are, therefore, of the opinion that the case of the appellant would not be covered by Section 140 and that the initiation of proceedings and the prosecution beyond three months from the date of accident was not beyond limitation.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1722056/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Head Constable vs State of NCT of Delhi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '\[name withheld\] vs State of NCT of Delhi, decided 14 March 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2008-03-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '\[name withheld\] vs State of NCT of Delhi, decided 14 March 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1722056/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Conviction of on-duty police driver for rash/negligent killing upheld (not colour of duty); probation granted after ~20 years litigation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0019)

## Delhi Police Constable vs Commissioner of Police and Others (CW-2008-0020)

**Record:** CW-2008-0020 (compiler id CWC-1176); case GAP3-39-007
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable vs Commissioner of Police and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Manmohan Sarin; Manmohan
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 4170 of 2001 / 149(2008)DLT674; (2008) 04 DEL CK 0209
**Judgment:** 2008-04-11 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1986-06-13 (1986)
**Place:** Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** NDPS Act 1985 s.21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, 1st Battalion, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Constable was arrested on 13.6.1986 in FIR No. 211/1986 under Section 21 NDPS Act, convicted and sentenced to 10 years RI in 1987 and dismissed in 1988, but acquitted by the High Court on 6.1.1989 for non-proof beyond reasonable doubt and reinstated in 1996. A departmental inquiry on the same allegations found him guilty and on 10.2.1998 imposed forfeiture of five years approved service with pay reduction, upheld in appeal and by the CAT. The Court held Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 was attracted since the acquittal rested substantially on technical non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act, leaving suspicion capable of resting on the official. Departmental proceedings were therefore not without jurisdiction, and the writ petition was dismissed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal subserves the ends of justice and does not call for any interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1719822/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/919136/shri-v-jayapalan-appellant-hash-commissioner-of-police-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable vs Commissioner of Police and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-04-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '149(2008)DLT674; (2008) 04 DEL CK 0209', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1719822/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/919136/shri-v-jayapalan-appellant-hash-commissioner-of-police-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; forfeiture of 5 yrs service upheld despite criminal acquittal on NDPS technicalities.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0020)

## Alipur Man vs State of National Capital Territory of Delhi (CW-2008-0011)

**Record:** CW-2008-0011 (compiler id CWC-0123); case DELHI-032
**Title:** Alipur Man vs State of National Capital Territory of Delhi
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Ajit Prakash Shah; S. Muralidhar
**Case number / citation:** LPA No. 2552/2005 (against order dated 24.08.2005 in WP(Crl) 1292/2003)
**Judgment:** 2008-07-02 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-08-15 (1999)
**Place:** North Delhi, Delhi; city town: Alipur; police station or unit: Police Station Alipur, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, Police Station Alipur, Delhi Police; Sub-Inspector, Police Station Alipur, Delhi Police; Head Constable, Police Station Alipur, Delhi Police; Constable, Police Station Alipur, Delhi Police; Constable, Police Station Alipur, Delhi Police; Constable, Police Station Alipur, Delhi Police; Constable, Police Station Alipur, Delhi Police (7 in record)
**Victims:** Alipur man, age 47 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court enhanced compensation to Rs 5 lakh with 9% interest for the custodial torture-murder of HSEB lineman an Alipur man (47) at PS Alipur. Picked up at dawn on Independence Day 1999 while carrying cash withdrawn for his cancer-dead sister's family, he was beaten through the day with third-degree methods and declared brought dead that evening with bruises over two-thirds of his body. The SHO, an SI, a head constable and four constables were suspended with a criminal case and Crime Branch probe, and a doctors' panel twice confirmed custodial death. Treating the claim as violation of Article 21 rather than ex gratia, the Court enhanced the Single Judge's Rs 3 lakh award. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It appears that during his interrogation and questioning by the police, he was beaten up and tortured and third degree methods were used as a result of which he suffered severe bodily injuries.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107445637/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Alipur Man vs State of National Capital Territory of Delhi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-07-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'LPA No. 2552/2005 (against order dated 24.08.2005 in WP(Crl) 1292/2003)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107445637/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Lineman tortured to death over carried cash; award enhanced Rs 3L to Rs 5L with interest.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2008-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0011)

## Delhi Police Constable v. State (Crl.A. No. 740/2001, part of Khem Chand batch) (CW-2008-0012)

**Record:** CW-2008-0012 (compiler id CWC-0485); case SWCUSTOD-017
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable v. State (Crl.A. No. 740/2001, part of Khem Chand batch)
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Manmohan Sarin; S.L. Bhayana
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 740/2001 (with Crl.A. Nos. 5/2000, 813/2001 and 719/2002)
**Judgment:** 2008-07-07 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Delhi; city town: Shikarpur village; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 376; IPC 354
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Shikarpur village girl, age 3 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 12 yrs; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Delhi Police Constable brutally raped his three-and-a-half-year-old neighbour 'V' in Shikarpur village, leaving vaginal tears that hospitalised the child for eleven days. The trial court convicted him under sections 376 and 354 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a Rs 50,000 fine as victim compensation. The High Court held that the appellant, himself a member of the law-enforcing agency, had perpetrated a ghastly crime on a helpless child, and upheld the conviction. It reduced the sentence to a net twelve years' rigorous imprisonment without remission, recording his undertaking to pay the fine, shift his family out of Shikarpur and never contact the victim's family. Scope note: a neighbourhood (non-custodial) rape by a serving constable, so the subcategory is recorded as other rather than custodial rape. The convicted Delhi Police constable in this record is a different man from the convicted Delhi Police constable of Andha Mugal police post covered in companion records of this dataset; this judgment gives the unit only as Delhi Police. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We, accordingly, uphold the conviction but reduce the sentence to a net term of 12 years of RI exclusive of remissions.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18498179/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** n/a (paras unnumbered in this judgment; operative order at p.16 of 56)
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable v. State (Crl.A. No. 740/2001, part of Khem Chand batch)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 740/2001 (with Crl.A. Nos. 5/2000, 813/2001 and 719/2002)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2008-07-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 740/2001 (with Crl.A. Nos. 5/2000, 813/2001 and 719/2002)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18498179/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi Police constable's child-rape conviction upheld; life cut to net 12 years RI plus Rs 50,000 to victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 3, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a 3-year-old girl'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0012)

## Nand Nagri Police Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I. (CW-2009-0011)

**Record:** CW-2009-0011 (compiler id CWC-0672); case GAP7-004
**Title:** Nand Nagri Police Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Aruna Suresh
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No.163/2004
**Judgment:** 2009-02-06 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-03-23 (1998)
**Place:** Shahdara, Delhi; city town: Nand Nagri; police station or unit: Police Station Nand Nagri; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Nand Nagri (1 in record)
**Victims:** Nand Nagri woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Sub-Inspector of PS Nand Nagri, who had arrested \[name withheld\], demanded Rs.4,000 from the arrestee's mother \[name withheld\] on 23 March 1998 at Karkardooma Courts for getting her son released on bail; she complained to the CBI and a trap on 24 March 1998 caught him accepting the bribe at the police station. The Special Judge convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 (1 year and 1.5 years RI with fines, concurrent). The High Court held demand and acceptance proved through the complainant, shadow witness and trap recovery, rejected pleas of defective sanction and false implication, and dismissed the appeal, directing surrender within a week.

> no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86687864/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 49
**display title redacted:** Nand Nagri Police Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No.163/2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2009-02-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No.163/2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86687864/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bribery conviction of SI (Rs.4,000 trap) upheld; 1.5y max RI concurrent; surrender ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0011)

## Delhi Police Head Constable and others v. State (Delhi Admn.) (CW-2009-0002)

**Record:** CW-2009-0002 (compiler id CWC-0092); case DELHI-001
**Title:** Delhi Police Head Constable and others v. State (Delhi Admn.)
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: V.B. Gupta; Badar Durrez Ahmed
**Case number / citation:** Crl. Appeal No. 33/1993
**Judgment:** 2009-03-06 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-08-06 (1980)
**Place:** North Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Police Post Andha Mugal, PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 330
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Post Andha Mugal, PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi; Constable, Police Post Andha Mugal, PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi; Constable, Police Post Andha Mugal, PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi (3 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. A Delhi man @ a Delhi man was picked up from Subzi Mandi railway station on 1 August 1980, illegally confined for five days at Andha Mugal police post, and beaten regularly to extract a confession about stolen property. On 5 August 1980 the head constable poured kerosene on him while the two constables set him on fire; he died the next day. The court relied on the magistrate-recorded dying declaration, corroborated by post-mortem evidence of extensive bruises and abrasions, rejecting the suicide defence. It dismissed the appeal, upholding life imprisonment with Rs 5,000 fine each under Sections 302/34 IPC and the additional two-year terms under Sections 330/34 IPC for the two constables, and ordered the appellants, who were on bail, to be taken into custody.

> The present appellants with pre-determination had put the deceased on fire knowing fully well that this would result into his death. The fact that deceased was kept in illegal custody in police post Andha Mugal from 1st August, 1980 to 5th August, 1980 has also been duly proved on record.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5987865/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 73
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Head Constable and others v. State (Delhi Admn.)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl. Appeal No. 33/1993', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2009-03-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl. Appeal No. 33/1993', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5987865/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Crl A 33/1993 verified on Indian Kanoon; appeal dismissed, life terms upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0002)

## Ex. Const. Pawan Kumar vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (CW-2009-0027)

**Record:** CW-2009-0027 (compiler id CWC-0790); case GAP2-18-007
**Title:** Ex. Const. Pawan Kumar vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: A. K. Sikri; Suresh Kait
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 991 of 2008 / LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-405
**Judgment:** 2009-07-03 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-03-04 (2005)
**Place:** North East, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: PS New Usmanpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 311(2)(b); IPC 307; IPC 34; Arms Act s.27; IPC 211; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Pawan Kumar (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi resident; Delhi resident; Delhi resident (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition of former Delhi Police Constable Pawan Kumar and upheld his dismissal from service without enquiry under Article 311(2)(b). The court found that for money he had conspired with known criminals to stage a fake gunshot attack on Anil Mahajan on 4 March 2005 in Ambedkar Basti so that Mahajan could falsely implicate his relatives in an attempt-to-murder case (FIR 74/2005). The court held that Gulfam's Section 164 CrPC statement and the phone-call links supplied solid material showing the constable's criminal propensity, and that retaining an officer capable of misusing official power to implicate innocents would endanger witnesses. It found no infirmity in the disciplinary authority's satisfaction that holding an enquiry was not reasonably practicable. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner herein belongs to the Disciplined Force. When material has surfaced on record showing links of the petitioner with criminal elements and also that conspiring with such hardened criminals, the petitioner allegedly implicated innocent persons in a false criminal case, forming an opinion that those victims would be reluctant to depose against the petitioner in a departmental inquiry is well founded.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51535345/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=109002053300&title=ex-cont-pawan-kumar-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-and-ors)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Ex. Const. Pawan Kumar vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-07-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-405', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51535345/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=109002053300&title=ex-cont-pawan-kumar-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-and-ors', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; dismissal of constable for staging false-implication conspiracy upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0027)

## Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State (CBI) (CW-2009-0028)

**Record:** CW-2009-0028 (compiler id CWC-1178); case GAP3-40-002
**Title:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State (CBI)
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: G.S. Sistani
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 73/2001 / (2009) 07 DEL CK 0398
**Judgment:** 2009-07-31 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-09-21 (1995)
**Place:** South Delhi, Delhi; city town: Vinay Nagar; police station or unit: Police Station Vinay Nagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, Police Station Vinay Nagar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Vinay Nagar man; Vinay Nagar man; Vinay Nagar man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. ASI of PS Vinay Nagar demanded Rs 1,000 from a Vinay Nagar man to release his detained cousin and friend, threatening to plant a knife on them, and was caught in a CBI trap on 21 September 1995. The Special Judge convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act in January 2001. The Delhi High Court held the complainant's account of demand and acceptance was corroborated by the shadow witness, recovery witness and trap officer, and rejected challenges to sanction and minor contradictions. It sustained the conviction but reduced the Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) sentence from three to two years RI given the 14-year pendency, and dismissed the appeal.

> I am of the considered opinion that a clear cut case is made out against the appellant of having demanded the illegal gratification in terms of money (Rs. 1,000/-) and having accepted the same.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/910073/darshan-lal-vs-state-cbi/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13075717/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 42
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State (CBI)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2009) 07 DEL CK 0398', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2009-07-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2009) 07 DEL CK 0398', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/910073/darshan-lal-vs-state-cbi/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13075717/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; conviction sustained, s.13 sentence reduced 3yr to 2yr (agent overstated sentence).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0028)

## Delhi Armed Police Constable (No.7570/DAP) vs Union of India & Anr. (CW-2009-0016)

**Record:** CW-2009-0016 (compiler id CWC-0673); case GAP7-005
**Title:** Delhi Armed Police Constable (No.7570/DAP) vs Union of India & Anr.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Madan B. Lokur; A.K. Pathak
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No.2087/2001
**Judgment:** 2009-10-12 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated (1997)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Delhi Armed Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (No.7570/DAP), Delhi Armed Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable was dismissed on 24 June 1997 under Article 311(2)(b) without a regular enquiry for association with the Bhoori gang and failure to report his knowledge of the April 1997 murder of K.S. Rana; his appeal, revision and CAT challenge all failed. The Court held there was material showing gang association and that he admitted knowing of the murder yet never informed his superiors, upheld dispensing with enquiry, and found no perversity in the concurrent orders. The writ was dismissed. No civilian victim of the officer himself is identified; the finding concerns criminal nexus and concealment, not absenteeism alone. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> no merit in this writ petition. Dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/133842986/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Delhi Armed Police Constable (No.7570/DAP) vs Union of India & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-10-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(C) No.2087/2001', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/133842986/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal for gang association and concealing murder knowledge upheld under Art 311(2)(b).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0016)

## Delhi Police SHO v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (CW-2009-0009)

**Record:** CW-2009-0009 (compiler id CWC-0094); case DELHI-003
**Title:** Delhi Police SHO v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Harjit Singh Bedi; J.M. Panchal
**Case number / citation:** Crl. Appeal Nos. 1440-1441 of 2008 / (2009) 17 SCC 445
**Judgment:** 2009-11-12 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-08-24 (1987)
**Place:** Shahdara, Delhi (district at time: East Delhi); city town: Delhi; police station or unit: PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man; Delhi man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 5 yrs; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. After a constable was stabbed on 16 August 1987, PS Vivek Vihar police picked up family members and neighbours of suspects a Delhi man and a Delhi man and confined them at the station as hostages until the duo surrendered. When the two were produced on 24 August 1987, SHO and others beat them severely; a Delhi man died the next day at Lok Nayak hospital. The SDM's inquest indicted the police, though a second inquest blamed the public and almost all witnesses turned hostile over 17 years. The Supreme Court held the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court germane, confirmed the Section 304-II conviction, but reduced the sentence from eight to five years given the appellant's age and the lapse of time, raising the fine from Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh payable as compensation to the deceased's mother. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the background of the above facts and that the conviction has been made under Sec.304 Part II of the IPC, we confirm the conviction as recorded by the High Court but reduce the sentence from 8 years to five years and increase the fine from rupees two lacs to five lacs.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1316909/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police SHO v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2009) 17 SCC 445', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2009-11-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2009) 17 SCC 445', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1316909/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC appeal verified on Indian Kanoon; conviction confirmed, 5 yr + Rs 5L fine-as-compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0009)

## State vs Govindpuri Police Sub-Inspector (CW-2010-0002)

**Record:** CW-2010-0002 (compiler id CWC-0111); case DELHI-020
**Title:** State vs Govindpuri Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Ajit Bharihoke
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. No. 176/1995
**Judgment:** 2010-01-15 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1986-09-19 (1986)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Govindpuri; police station or unit: P.S. Sriniwaspuri; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part I
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, P.S. Sriniwaspuri (1 in record)
**Victims:** Govindpuri man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 10 yrs; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court set aside SI 's trial-court acquittal and convicted him of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the custodial death of theft suspect \[name withheld\]. Picked up from his Govindpuri jhuggi on 19 September 1986 in FIR 365/1986, the victim, who had no injuries when picked up, suffered nine injuries in custody and died of coma caused by a head blow; the respondent admitted the deceased was in his custody throughout. The Court rejected the TB and jeep-jerk defences and the sanction objection, holding the officer resorted to third-degree methods to extract a confession. It imposed 10 years RI plus Rs 55,000 fine (Rs 50,000 to the closest relative; six months RI in default). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The result of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment of acquittal is set aside and the respondent is convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part 1 IPC.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156141267/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 37
**display title redacted:** State vs Govindpuri Police Sub-Inspector
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-01-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'CRL.A. No. 176/1995', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156141267/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; trial acquittal set aside, SI convicted u/s 304-I, 10 years RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2010-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0002)

## Delhi Police Head Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others (CW-2010-0022)

**Record:** CW-2010-0022 (compiler id CWC-1180); case GAP3-40-004
**Title:** Delhi Police Head Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Mool Chand Garg; Anil Kumar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 1310/2010 / (2010) 03 DEL CK 0033
**Judgment:** 2010-03-04 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980 r.15(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Head Constable of Delhi Police faced departmental proceedings for demanding and accepting Rs 45,000 as consideration for securing another person's appointment to a government job, and was dismissed from service on 24 October 2007. His departmental appeal was rejected in February 2008 and the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his challenge in February 2009. The Delhi High Court held he could not show a case of no evidence or violation of natural justice, noting evidence of guilt in abundance and his wife's undisputed return of Rs 17,000. It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the dismissal from service intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 12th February, 2009. There are no such illegalities or irregularities in the order of the Tribunal which will require interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/361481/chhote-lal-appellant-hash-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-and-others-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=100102945000&title=chhote-lal-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Head Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-03-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2010) 03 DEL CK 0033', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/361481/chhote-lal-appellant-hash-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=100102945000&title=chhote-lal-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; dismissal of Delhi Police head constable for bribe-taking upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0022)

## Surender Singh vs State of Delhi (CW-2010-0025)

**Record:** CW-2010-0025 (compiler id CWC-0784); case GAP2-18-001
**Title:** Surender Singh vs State of Delhi
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Pradeep Nandrajog; Suresh Kait
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2008 / (2010) 03 DEL CK 0195
**Judgment:** 2010-03-18 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-06-30 (2002)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Mayur Vihar, Delhi; police station or unit: PS Mayur Vihar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307
**Officers (gated display forms):** Surender Singh (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mayur Vihar, Delhi man; Mayur Vihar, Delhi woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Delhi Police constable Surender Singh and upheld his conviction for shooting dead civilian a Mayur Vihar, Delhi man with his service SAF carbine inside PS Mayur Vihar on 30 June 2002, also injuring woman head constable The Court held eyewitness police testimony and ballistic linkage proved he chased the deceased into the reporting room firing repeatedly, rejecting his claim of an accidental discharge during a scuffle as a version never put to the eyewitnesses. It imputed knowledge for the Section 307 conviction since he fired indiscriminately knowing persons were in the room, and sustained the sentences of life imprisonment and seven years' rigorous imprisonment, noting life was the least penalty. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The appellant chased the deceased into the police station and shot him. While so doing, the appellant remained unmindful of the presence of the other police officers, one of whom was shot. It is apparent that the appellant is guilty of the offence of having murdered a Mayur Vihar, Delhi man

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/382635/surender-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-delhi-respondent/); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/surender-singh-v-statewatermark-1635732.pdf); [lawsathi.in](https://lawsathi.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Surender_Singh_v__State__NCT_of_Delhi_.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Surender Singh vs State of Delhi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2010) 03 DEL CK 0195', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2010-03-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2010) 03 DEL CK 0195', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/382635/surender-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-delhi-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/surender-singh-v-statewatermark-1635732.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawsathi.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Surender_Singh_v__State__NCT_of_Delhi_.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld on-duty constable's murder and attempt-to-murder conviction for station shooting; life + 7 years RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0025)

## New Delhi Man and Others v. The Commissioner of Police and Others (CW-2010-0013)

**Record:** CW-2010-0013 (compiler id CWC-0719); case SWILLEGA-067
**Title:** New Delhi Man and Others v. The Commissioner of Police and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S. Muralidhar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 11079 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2010-03-25 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-05-23 (2002)
**Place:** South Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: Police Station Sangam Vihar, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 376; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Sangam Vihar, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5.3 lakh (Rs 5,32,750)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court (Justice S. Muralidhar) awarded mason Prempal Rs 5,32,750 with 6% interest from his arrest plus Rs 30,000 costs for years of police harassment culminating in a false rape case (FIR No. 231/2002). The Court relied on the final, unappealed 2004 acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge, who had found a New Delhi man framed because he complained against police officials, tortured in custody, and reduced to a living corpse. Holding his Article 21 rights brazenly violated, the Court limited compensation to the FIR 231/2002 incarceration, directed the Commissioner to send a written apology to the family and review other pending cases against a New Delhi man, and noted the IO had earned only a forfeiture-of-service punishment.

> In light of the overwhelming evidence discussed threadbare in the judgment of the learned ASJ, which has attained finality, there can be no manner of doubt that Petitioner1 has been treated most unreasonably, unfairly by the police and his fundamental rights under Article 21 were brazenly violated by the Respondents.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121309564/); State v. Prempal, SC No. 29/2002, ASJ New Delhi, judgment dated 28-09-2004 (acquittal with findings of false implication)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** New Delhi Man and Others v. The Commissioner of Police and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-03-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 532,750.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(C) No. 11079 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121309564/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'State v. Prempal, SC No. 29/2002, ASJ New Delhi, judgment dated 28-09-2004 (acquittal with findings of false implication)', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment text verified on Indian Kanoon; Rs 5,32,750 + interest + costs award matches.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0013)

## Patel Nagar Man vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors. (CW-2010-0015)

**Record:** CW-2010-0015 (compiler id CWC-0674); case GAP7-002
**Title:** Patel Nagar Man vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S. Muralidhar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No.5520/2007
**Judgment:** 2010-06-03 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-06-12 (2007)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Patel Nagar; police station or unit: Police Station Patel Nagar / Tihar Jail; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Patel Nagar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Patel Nagar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 6.5 lakh (Rs 6,54,584)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Sewage labourer a Patel Nagar man was arrested by Delhi Police on 9 June 2007 under Sections 107/151 CrPC, sent to Tihar Jail on 10 June 2007, and died there on 12 June 2007 with multiple ante-mortem injuries; a medical review board confirmed homicidal death. The Court rejected explanations of self-inflicted injury, held Delhi Police had violated the D.K. Basu guidelines in the arrest and remand, and found a clear Article 21 violation. It directed the GNCTD to pay Rs.6,54,584 compensation plus Rs.15,000 costs, with minors' shares kept in fixed deposits. Tihar custodial officials were not individually named in the order. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> homicidal death of late a Patel Nagar man which took place while he was in judicial custody in the Tihar Jail.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166322090/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 33
**display title redacted:** Patel Nagar Man vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-06-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 654,584.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(C) No.5520/2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166322090/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Homicidal death in custody established; D.K. Basu violations by police; Rs.6,54,584 plus costs awarded.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0015)

## Delhi Police Constable and others vs CBI (CW-2010-0036)

**Record:** CW-2010-0036 (compiler id CWC-1181); case GAP3-40-005
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable and others vs CBI
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Sanjiv Khanna
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 82 & 75/2002
**Judgment:** 2010-11-02 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-03-31 (1994)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Gokulpuri; police station or unit: Police Station Gokulpuri; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police, Police Station Gokulpuri; Head Constable, Delhi Police, Police Station Gokulpuri (2 in record)
**Victims:** Gokulpuri man; Gokulpuri man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. PS Gokulpuri staff lifted a Gokulpuri man from his jhuggi on the night of 28-29 March 1994, detained him overnight and released him with a direction to pay Rs 5,000; Constable collected the treated notes at a Gokulpuri man's house on 31 March 1994 and was caught in the CBI trap. The Special Judge convicted \[name withheld\] and Head Constable in January 2002. The Delhi High Court held the case proved beyond doubt against \[name withheld\] through the complainant, shadow witness and recovery evidence with matching notes and pink washes, and upheld his conviction and sentence in full. It acquitted \[name withheld\] on benefit of doubt as he was absent from the trap spot, and disposed of both appeals accordingly.

> As held above, the conviction and sentence of \[name withheld\] u/s 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act is upheld and maintained.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69757344/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 32
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable and others vs CBI
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 82 & 75/2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2010-11-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 82 & 75/2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69757344/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; constable's PC Act conviction upheld, co-accused HC acquitted on benefit of doubt.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0036)

## Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police (SHO at the time) vs Union of India & Ors. (CW-2011-0024)

**Record:** CW-2011-0024 (compiler id CWC-0675); case GAP7-001
**Title:** Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police (SHO at the time) vs Union of India & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Anil Kumar; Veena Birbal
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No.18511/2004
**Judgment:** 2011-02-21 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-08-06 (1980)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Subzi Mandi; police station or unit: Police Station Subzi Mandi; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Commissioner of Police (SHO at the time), Police Station Subzi Mandi, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Subzi Mandi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

In August 1980, a Subzi Mandi man @ a Subzi Mandi man was illegally detained at Andha Mughal police post under PS Subzi Mandi and died in custody on 6 August 1980; other personnel were convicted for the custodial death while the then SHO's role was pursued departmentally. The Court held the petitioner, as SHO, had knowledge of the illegal detention, took no action, and was instrumental in showing the death as suicide to hush up the matter. Finding grave misconduct and a proportionate penalty, it dismissed the writ against the CAT order, leaving intact the 50% permanent pension cut and 50% gratuity forfeiture imposed under the CCS (Pension) Rules after his 1997 superannuation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 10th February, 2004 in O.A No.1855/2003

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27577082/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police (SHO at the time) vs Union of India & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-02-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(C) No.18511/2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27577082/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; 50% pension cut plus 50% gratuity forfeiture for SHO's custodial-death cover-up role upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0024)

## Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State (CBI) (CW-2011-0028)

**Record:** CW-2011-0028 (compiler id CWC-1177); case GAP3-40-001
**Title:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State (CBI)
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Rajiv Shakdher
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 113/2003
**Judgment:** 2011-04-21 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-09-15 (1996)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Gokulpuri; police station or unit: Police Station Gokul Puri; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, Police Station Gokul Puri (1 in record)
**Victims:** Gokulpuri man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. ASI, investigating officer of FIR No. 645/1996, demanded a Rs 2,000 bribe from the accused in that case and was caught in a CBI trap laid on the complainant's complaint of 21 September 1996. The Special Judge, Tis Hazari convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act in February 2003. The Delhi High Court held the trap evidence, including treated-note recovery and hand wash, proved demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. It sustained the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal, and ordered the appellant taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.

> I am of the view that the case of the prosecution against the Appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court is sustained.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1136707/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/135488057/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 33
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State (CBI)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 113/2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-04-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 113/2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1136707/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/135488057/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; PC Act conviction of Delhi Police ASI sustained on appeal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0028)

## Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police vs State thr. CBI (CW-2011-0007)

**Record:** CW-2011-0007 (compiler id CWC-0099); case DELHI-008
**Title:** Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police vs State thr. CBI
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Harjit Singh Bedi; C.K. Prasad
**Case number / citation:** Crl. Appeal Nos. 2231, 2476, 2477-2483 and 2484 of 2009 / (2011) 6 SCC 1; AIR 2011 SC 1748
**Judgment:** 2011-05-02 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-03-31 (1997)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi (Connaught Place); police station or unit: Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 307; IPC 193; IPC 201; IPC 203
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Commissioner of Police, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; Inspector, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; Sub-Inspector, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; Head Constable, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; Head Constable, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; Head Constable, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; Constable, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; Constable, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; Constable, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; Constable, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police (10 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi man; New Delhi man; New Delhi man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court (Harjit Singh Bedi, J.) dismissed the appeals of ten Delhi Police Crime Branch officials and upheld their life sentences for the Connaught Place fake encounter of 31 March 1997. Tracking wanted criminal Mohd. Yaseen, Inspector mistook bearded businessman \[name withheld\] for him; two police parties surrounded the victims' Maruti Esteem at the Barakhamba Road red light and fired 34 shots, killing two occupants and grievously injuring the third. The CBI exposed the cover-up — no shot was fired from inside the car, the 7.65mm pistol was planted, and the policemen's injuries came from police cross-fire — and the Court held the firing was with common intention to annihilate the occupants, spurred by hopes of reward and promotion, rejecting self-defence, superior-orders, sanction and Section 140 Delhi Police Act pleas. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On an overall view of the evidence in the case and in the light of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find no fault with the judgments of the trial court as well as the High Court. We, accordingly, dismiss all these appeals.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/708584/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30424145/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 86
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police vs State thr. CBI
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2011) 6 SCC 1; AIR 2011 SC 1748', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-05-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2011) 6 SCC 1; AIR 2011 SC 1748', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/708584/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30424145/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: SC dismissed all appeals; 10 policemen's life sentences for fake encounter upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0007)

## Jahangir Puri Police Sub-Inspector vs CBI (CW-2011-0025)

**Record:** CW-2011-0025 (compiler id CWC-0676); case GAP7-007
**Title:** Jahangir Puri Police Sub-Inspector vs CBI
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Suresh Kait
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No.995/2002
**Judgment:** 2011-05-06 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-07-12 (1995)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Jahangir Puri; police station or unit: Police Station Jahangir Puri; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Jahangir Puri (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jahangir Puri man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Sub-Inspector of PS Jahangir Puri demanded and accepted Rs.5,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] on 12 July 1995 as a reward for official favour in a bank-fraud complaint; the CBI trap the same evening recovered the tainted money from him at the police station with positive hand and pant wash. The Special Judge convicted him in December 2002 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 (2 years and 3 years SI with fines, concurrent). The High Court held demand, acceptance, recovery and motive proved, confirmed the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal and cancelled bail bonds with surrender directions.

> no discrepancies in the order/judgment passed by trial Judge, therefore, I confirm the same.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163706068/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 66
**display title redacted:** Jahangir Puri Police Sub-Inspector vs CBI
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No.995/2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-05-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No.995/2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163706068/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bribery conviction of SI (Rs.5,000 CBI trap) confirmed with 3y max SI; appeal dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0025)

## Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CW-2011-0029)

**Record:** CW-2011-0029 (compiler id CWC-1179); case GAP3-40-003
**Title:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs Central Bureau of Investigation
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: M.L. Mehta
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 746/2002
**Judgment:** 2011-05-23 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-10-28 (1996)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi (district at time: South Delhi); city town: Nizamuddin; police station or unit: Police Station Nizamuddin; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, Police Station Nizammuddin (1 in record)
**Victims:** Nizamuddin man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. ASI, investigating officer of FIR No. 304/93, demanded Rs 500 per court hearing from the accused \[name withheld\] in exchange for weakening the evidence, and accepted the money at Patiala House Courts in a CBI trap on 28 October 1996. The Special Judge convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and imposed four years RI per count in September 2001. The Delhi High Court held demand, acceptance and recovery proved beyond reasonable doubt through the complainant, shadow and recovery witnesses and matching tainted notes with positive hand washes. It maintained the conviction, reduced the sentence to two years RI on each count concurrent, dismissed the appeal and ordered the accused taken into custody.

> while maintaining the conviction as awarded by the learned Special Judge, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met by sentencing the accused to two years of rigorous imprisonment on each count.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/474866/); [indiankanoon.org](http://indiankanoon.org/doc/758733/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 33
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs Central Bureau of Investigation
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 746/2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-05-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 746/2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/474866/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'http://indiankanoon.org/doc/758733/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; PC Act conviction maintained with sentence reduced 4yr to 2yr per count.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0029)

## New Delhi Man vs Union of India; Jaspal Kaur vs Union of India (CW-2011-0011)

**Record:** CW-2011-0011 (compiler id CWC-0106); case DELHI-015
**Title:** New Delhi Man vs Union of India; Jaspal Kaur vs Union of India
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S. Muralidhar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) Nos. 4756 & 5405/1997 / (2011) 125 DRJ 273
**Judgment:** 2011-07-04 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-03-31 (1997)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi (Connaught Place); police station or unit: Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Satyavir Singh Rathi (Assistant Commissioner of Police); Anil Kumar (Inspector); Police personnel, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; Shiv Kumar (Head Constable); Police personnel, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; Police personnel, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; Sunil Kumar (Constable); Subhash Chand (Constable); Police personnel, Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; Sumer Singh (Constable) (10 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi man; New Delhi man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 30 lakh (Rs 30,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court awarded Rs 15,00,000 each to the families of a New Delhi man and a New Delhi man, the two businessmen killed in the Connaught Place fake encounter of 31 March 1997, holding the State's liability to compensate for the callous and wanton killing undoubted. With ten Crime Branch policemen led by ACP Satyavir Singh Rathi already convicted of murder at trial, the Court computed pecuniary dependency with CPI-indexed non-pecuniary compensation, interest and costs. It held that criminal trial, disciplinary action and constitutional-court reparation are three independent facets of accountability, and expressed surprise that Delhi Police rules let convicted murderers remain in service pending appeal.

> a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs being the compensation amount payable to the Petitioner and her two children. The Registrar General will within a week thereafter pay Rs. 5,00,000/- each to Jaspal Kaur and her two children on proper identification.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1334822/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/708584/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30945257/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 33
**display title redacted:** New Delhi Man vs Union of India; Jaspal Kaur vs Union of India
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers', 'sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-07-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 3,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2011) 125 DRJ 273', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1334822/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/708584/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30945257/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs 15L x 2 verified via mirror snippets + quotation in 2022 sequel (primary 429).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0011)

## Delhi Police Sub-Inspector vs CBI (CW-2011-0041)

**Record:** CW-2011-0041 (compiler id CWC-1182); case GAP3-40-006
**Title:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector vs CBI
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Rajiv Shakdher
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 129/2003
**Judgment:** 2011-09-30 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-03-09 (1995)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Vasant Kunj; police station or unit: Vasant Kunj Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, Vasant Kunj Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Vasant Kunj man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. SI, in charge of the Rangpuri Hills area, demanded Rs 10,000 per month from stone-chips dealer a Vasant Kunj man to let his truck business run unimpeded, and accepted a Rs 3,000 instalment inside his room at Vasant Kunj police station in a CBI trap on 9 March 1995. The Special Judge convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act with three years RI per count in February 2003. The Delhi High Court held demand, acceptance and recovery proved by the complainant, shadow witness and trap officer with matching notes and positive phenolphthalein washes, despite hostile independent witnesses. It dismissed the appeal as without merit, cancelled bail and ordered the accused taken into custody forthwith.

> For the reasons given hereinabove, I am of the view that the appeal is without merit and hence, consequently deserves to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. Resultantly, the accused shall be taken into custody forthwith.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/758733/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/909322/satish-chander-appellant-hash-cbi-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 31
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector vs CBI
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 129/2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-09-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 129/2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/758733/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/909322/satish-chander-appellant-hash-cbi-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; PC Act conviction of Delhi Police SI sustained, appeal dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0041](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0041)

## Mahesh Babu vs State (CW-2011-0045)

**Record:** CW-2011-0045 (compiler id CWC-0785); case GAP2-18-002
**Title:** Mahesh Babu vs State
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Badar Durrez Ahmed; Veena Birbal
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 258 of 1997 / (2012) 1 AD 593 : (2012) 1 JCC 141
**Judgment:** 2011-12-05 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-11-09 (1992)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: PS Sisa Mau, Kanpur (UP Police); offence near Old Delhi Railway Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; Arms Act 1959 s.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Mahesh Babu (Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of UP Police Sub-Inspector Mahesh Babu and upheld his conviction for murdering Delhi Police constable with his service revolver near Old Delhi railway station on 9 November 1992. The Court held eyewitness testimony and a ballistic match between the bullets in the body and the appellant's service revolver proved the intentional firing of four shots, rejecting the plea that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC for want of sudden fight or heat of passion. It upheld the sentences of life imprisonment with Rs 1,000 fine under Section 302 IPC and three years' rigorous imprisonment with Rs 1,000 fine under Section 27 of the Arms Act, to run concurrently, and ordered the appellant taken into custody. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is absolutely clear that the appellant wanted to finish constable and he succeeded in doing so.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/393366/mahesh-babu-appellant-hash-state-respondent/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85724739/); [pdf.lawlens.in](https://pdf.lawlens.in/89b17eee-8c31-45c7-a0c9-5dbee458fda9)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Mahesh Babu vs State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2012) 1 AD 593 : (2012) 1 JCC 141', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-12-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2012) 1 AD 593 : (2012) 1 JCC 141', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/393366/mahesh-babu-appellant-hash-state-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85724739/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://pdf.lawlens.in/89b17eee-8c31-45c7-a0c9-5dbee458fda9', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld UP SI's murder conviction for shooting a Delhi constable; life + 3 years RI concurrent.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0045](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0045)

## Mahender Singh vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (CW-2012-0023)

**Record:** CW-2012-0023 (compiler id CWC-0787); case GAP2-18-004
**Title:** Mahender Singh vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Badar Durrez Ahmed; V.K. Jain
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 301 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2012-01-27 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-02-19 (2008)
**Place:** South Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Aaya Nagar Police Picket; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980 r.15(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Mahender Singh (Head Constable); Constable, Delhi Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition of Delhi Police Head Constable Mahender Singh and upheld his removal from service for corrupt practice, holding the enquiry had proved that on 19 February 2008 he stopped a vigilance-decoy vehicle at Aaya Nagar picket for a seat-belt violation, settled the Rs 1,200 challan for a Rs 200 bribe, and had Constable collect the marked notes, which were recovered from \[name withheld\]'s pocket by the vigilance team on camera. The Court rejected the objection under Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, holding that proceeding departmentally rather than by criminal trial under Sections 7/13(1)(d) of the PC Act was comparatively favourable to him and caused no prejudice. It held the removal penalty was not disproportionate and agreed that a police official indulging in such corrupt activities needs to be weeded out of the force. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We are in agreement with the view that a police official indulging into such corrupt activities should not be allowed to continue in service and needs to be weeded out from the police force.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25826872/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/25826872/?formInput=authorid%3A%20v-k-jain)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Mahender Singh vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-01-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(C) No. 301 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25826872/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/25826872/?formInput=authorid%3A%20v-k-jain', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld removal of HC caught on camera taking Rs 200 bribe via co-constable; vigilance trap proved.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0023)

## In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident dated 4/5.06.2011 v. Home Secretary, Union of India and Others (CW-2012-0005)

**Record:** CW-2012-0005 (compiler id CWC-0511); case SWDISPRO-003
**Title:** In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident dated 4/5.06.2011 v. Home Secretary, Union of India and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: B. S. Chauhan; Swatanter Kumar
**Case number / citation:** Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 122 of 2011 / (2012) 5 SCC 1; \[2012\] 4 SCR 971
**Judgment:** 2012-02-23 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-06-04 (2011)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Delhi Police (Ramlila Maidan crackdown force); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court decided the suo motu case on the midnight 4/5 June 2011 police crackdown on Baba Ramdev sleeping supporters at Ramlila Maidan, Delhi, in which lathis, tear-gas shells and brick-batting were used to disperse the gathering, killing a Delhi woman and injuring many. The Court held the police action showed negligence and abuse of power with unjustifiable and brutal acts, while also finding contributory negligence by the organisers Trust. The Court directed disciplinary action against all erring police personnel irrespective of rank, registration of criminal cases, and ad hoc compensation of Rs 5 lakh to a Delhi woman kin, Rs 50,000 for grievous injuries and Rs 25,000 for simple injuries, with 25% of death/grievous awards payable by the Trust. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Take disciplinary action against all the erring police officers/personnel who have indulged in brick-batting, have resorted to lathi charge and excessive use of tear gas shells upon the crowd, have exceeded their authority or have acted in a manner not permissible under the prescribed procedures, rules or the standing orders and their actions have an element of criminality.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17021567/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b133e691cb22da6d67a9); [lawsathi.in](https://lawsathi.in/judgements/pdf/sc/2012/en/2012_4_971_1152_EN.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 234(a)
**display title redacted:** In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident dated 4/5.06.2011 v. Home Secretary, Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-02-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2012) 5 SCC 1; \[2012\] 4 SCR 971', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17021567/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b133e691cb22da6d67a9', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawsathi.in/judgements/pdf/sc/2012/en/2012_4_971_1152_EN.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC held midnight crackdown brutal; compensation plus disciplinary/criminal action directed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0005)

## Delhi Police personnel vs C.B.I. (CW-2013-0022)

**Record:** CW-2013-0022 (compiler id CWC-0793); case GAP2-19-004
**Title:** Delhi Police personnel vs C.B.I.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Mukta Gupta
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. No. 630 of 2002 / (2013) 4 AD 492 : (2013) 2 JCC 1143
**Judgment:** 2013-04-02 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-09-07 (1994)
**Place:** North East, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Police Post Usmanpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Police Post Usmanpur, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 4 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of police-post official \[name withheld\] of Police Post Usmanpur and confirmed his conviction for demanding and accepting a Rs.200 bribe (balance of a Rs.500 demand) from complainant \[name withheld\]. A Delhi resident to release his seized welding machine and drop a challan. The CBI trap on 7 September 1994 recovered the treated notes from his shirt pocket. The court held the complainant's testimony, corroborated by the shadow and recovery witnesses, proved demand, acceptance and recovery beyond reasonable doubt, raising the Section 20 presumption which the appellant failed to rebut. It rejected the handshake explanation and held the co-accused constable's acquittal did not enure to the appellant, confirming the 4-year RI sentence. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Further since the factum of demand, acceptance and recovery of Rs.200/- as bribe has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further in view of acceptance being proved the presumption is raised against the Appellant under Section 20 of the PC Act for offence under Section 7 PC Act and thereafter the onus shifts on the Appellant to prove that the said money was as legal remuneration which the Appellant failed to prove.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106936822/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police personnel vs C.B.I.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2013) 4 AD 492 : (2013) 2 JCC 1143', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2013-04-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2013) 4 AD 492 : (2013) 2 JCC 1143', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106936822/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; police-post official bribery conviction and 4-year sentence confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0022)

## Delhi Police Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I. (CW-2013-0038)

**Record:** CW-2013-0038 (compiler id CWC-1185); case GAP3-41-003
**Title:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Siddharth Mridul
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 461/2003
**Judgment:** 2013-11-27 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-07-26 (1995)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 4 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court (Siddharth Mridul, J.) on 27 November 2013 dismissed the appeal of Delhi Police Sub-Inspector against his 2003 conviction for demanding and accepting a Rs. 5,000 bribe from property dealer a New Delhi man to dispose of a complaint against him. The court found that a CBI trap laid on 26 July 1995 caught the appellant arriving in a Sub-Inspector's uniform and that the tainted money was recovered from his co-accused. It held demand and acceptance proved, raised the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act which the appellant failed to rebut, and sustained the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine. The court cancelled his bail bond and ordered him to be taken into custody forthwith. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Accordingly, the appellant is found guilty under Section 120 IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The appellant is also found guilty and convicted for the substantive offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34657353/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/908499/tirath-singh-rawat-appellant-hash-cbi-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 44
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 461/2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2013-11-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 461/2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34657353/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/908499/tirath-singh-rawat-appellant-hash-cbi-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** PC Act conviction of Delhi Police SI upheld on appeal; 4 years RI sustained, bail cancelled.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0038)

## Delhi Police Inspector vs State (NCT of Delhi) (CW-2014-0016)

**Record:** CW-2014-0016 (compiler id CWC-0792); case GAP2-19-003
**Title:** Delhi Police Inspector vs State (NCT of Delhi)
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: V. K. Jain
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. No. 236 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2014-01-20 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-06-16 (2000)
**Place:** South West, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: District Crime Cell Mayapuri; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, DIU South-West / District Crime Cell Mayapuri, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court confirmed the conviction of Delhi Police Inspector \[name withheld\] for demanding and accepting a Rs.10,000 bribe from complainant \[name withheld\] for not registering a Section 325 IPC case against him. The ACB trap on 16 June 2000 at Munirka recovered the treated notes from his pant pocket, with a pink hand wash and tallied note numbers. The court held the complainant's testimony, corroborated by the panch witness and raiding officer plus the Section 20 presumption, left no reasonable doubt of criminal misconduct. It confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence from 3 to 2 years RI on both counts given the 14-year pendency, with Section 428 benefit and surrender ordered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The appellant committed offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 since being a public servant he accepted from the complainant gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for refraining from registering a case under Section 325 IPC against him.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73328502/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Inspector vs State (NCT of Delhi)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'CRL.A. No. 236 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2014-01-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'CRL.A. No. 236 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-05-02', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 2 May 2024, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: \[name withheld\]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://order.law/api/pdf/SCIN010040682014?order=5hcyd', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2024-05-02', 'url': 'https://order.law/api/pdf/SCIN010040682014?order=5hcyd', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73328502/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; Inspector bribery conviction confirmed, sentence reduced 3 to 2 years RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0016)

## Delhi Police Head Constable vs State (CW-2014-0017)

**Record:** CW-2014-0017 (compiler id CWC-1183); case GAP3-41-001
**Title:** Delhi Police Head Constable vs State
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S.P. Garg
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 99/2000 / (2014) 1 ILR 773
**Judgment:** 2014-01-30 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-05-12 (1996)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi (district at time: East Delhi); city town: Shahdara; police station or unit: Police Station Seema Puri; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 307; IPC 34; Arms Act 1959 s.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Shahdara man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Delhi Police Head Constable fired his issued 9mm service revolver at a Shahdara man during a late-night quarrel between two groups near Shahdara on 12 May 1996, inflicting a bullet injury that hospitalised the victim for several days. The Sessions Court convicted him under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act in January 1999 while acquitting his two co-accused. The Delhi High Court held he had misused his official weapon, fired at a vital organ without reasonable apprehension and fled, and that he deserved no leniency given his nexus with criminals. It affirmed the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal and directed him to surrender on 6 February 2014 to serve the remaining sentence.

> Instead of using the official weapon for the purpose it was issued, he associated with criminals and went to the spot where there was quarrel over sharing of money among the two groups. The appellant had direct nexus with the individuals having criminal background and assisted them in their fight against the other.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51794509/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/404440/liyakat-ali-appellant-hash-state-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Head Constable vs State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2014) 1 ILR 773', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2014-01-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2014) 1 ILR 773', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51794509/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/404440/liyakat-ali-appellant-hash-state-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; s.307/Arms Act conviction for service-weapon shooting sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0017)

## Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CW-2014-0027)

**Record:** CW-2014-0027 (compiler id CWC-0791); case GAP2-19-002
**Title:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others vs Central Bureau of Investigation
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S. Muralidhar
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. No. 164 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2014-05-30 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-07-10 (2001)
**Place:** West, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: PS Mayapuri; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Mayapuri, Delhi Police (IO, FIR No. 110/01) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Delhi Police Sub-Inspector \[name withheld\] and confirmed his conviction for demanding and accepting an Rs.8,000 bribe from complainant \[name withheld\] for not arresting him in a cross-case. The CBI trap on 10 July 2001 recovered the treated notes from the officer, and both his hand washes turned pink. The court held that the collective reading of the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 proved conscious demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, attracting the presumption under Section 20 PC Act. It rejected the defences of planted money and defective procedure and held the 3-year RI sentence not disproportionate, cancelling bail bonds with surrender ordered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Court is of the view that a collective reading of the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 is sufficient to draw the conclusion regarding the conscious acceptance of the bribe amount by the Appellant. With both the elements i.e. conscious demand and conscious acceptance being proved by the prosecution in the above manner beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was certainly attracted in the present case.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49216877/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 33
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others vs Central Bureau of Investigation
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'CRL.A. No. 164 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2014-05-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'CRL.A. No. 164 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49216877/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; SI bribery conviction and 3-year sentence confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0027)

## Delhi Police Constable vs State (NCT of Delhi) (CW-2014-0031)

**Record:** CW-2014-0031 (compiler id CWC-0794); case GAP2-19-005
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable vs State (NCT of Delhi)
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S. Muralidhar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2008 / (2014) 09 DEL CK 0099
**Judgment:** 2014-09-29 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-02-16 (2001)
**Place:** Central, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Police Post Red Fort, PS Kotwali; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Post Red Fort, PS Kotwali, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Delhi Police Constable of Police Post Red Fort and confirmed his conviction for demanding and accepting a Rs.500 monthly bribe from physically handicapped pavement bookseller a Delhi resident to let him sell books near Red Fort. The ACB trap on 16 February 2001 recovered treated notes from the constable's hand with pink hand washes. The court held the panch witness's evidence, corroborated by the complainant and Raid Officer, proved voluntary acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt, shifting the Section 20 burden which the appellant failed to discharge. It held the sentence of 1 year plus 1.5 years RI not excessive for a policeman, cancelling bail bonds with surrender ordered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For all the aforementioned reasons, the Court is satisfied that no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting the Appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/401590/vijay-narain-vs-state/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 28
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable vs State (NCT of Delhi)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2014) 09 DEL CK 0099', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2014-09-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2014) 09 DEL CK 0099', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/401590/vijay-narain-vs-state/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified via CourtKutchehry; constable monthly-bribe conviction confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0031)

## Delhi Police Constable vs State (CW-2014-0036)

**Record:** CW-2014-0036 (compiler id CWC-1184); case GAP3-41-002
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable vs State
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Sunita Gupta
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 1336/2011 / (2015) 2 AD 184 : (2015) 1 JCC 314
**Judgment:** 2014-12-02 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-09-17 (2004)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Mayur Vihar; police station or unit: Police Station Mayur Vihar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 307
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police, Police Station Kalyanpuri (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mayur Vihar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 7 yrs; Rs 20,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Delhi Police Constable, on patrolling duty with a.38 service revolver, shot a Mayur Vihar man in the chest during a road quarrel near Mayur Vihar around 12:30 AM on 17 September 2004, leaving him in ICU. The Trial Court convicted him under Section 307 IPC with ten years RI and a Rs 25,000 fine in September 2011. The Delhi High Court held the firing had no reasonable nexus with official duty so no sanction bar arose, and that the injured witness's testimony stood corroborated by medical and eyewitness evidence. It sustained the conviction, reduced the sentence to seven years RI, directed Rs 20,000 of any realised fine as compensation to the victim, and dismissed the appeal with that modification.

> The learned Trial Court has rightly analyzed the evidence and convicted the Appellant under Section 307 IPC. The findings do not call for any interference.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7218631/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/401794/tarun-vikram-vs-state/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 54
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable vs State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2015) 2 AD 184 : (2015) 1 JCC 314', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2014-12-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2015) 2 AD 184 : (2015) 1 JCC 314', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7218631/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/401794/tarun-vikram-vs-state/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; s.307 conviction sustained, sentence cut 10yr to 7yr with victim compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0036)

## Ex. Const. Satbir Singh and Anr. vs National Capital Territory of Delhi (CW-2014-0013)

**Record:** CW-2014-0013 (compiler id CWC-0119); case DELHI-028
**Title:** Ex. Const. Satbir Singh and Anr. vs National Capital Territory of Delhi
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 196/2003
**Judgment:** 2014-12-22 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-01-14 (1991)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Badarpur; police station or unit: P.S. Badarpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Satbir Singh (Constable); Constable, P.S. Badarpur (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition of two ex-constables and sustained their dismissal for misappropriating recovered case property. On patrol from P.S. Badarpur on 14 January 1991, they caught a thief and recovered Rs 1,38,000 but deposited only Rs 56,200, pocketing the rest; though acquitted in the criminal trial in 1999, a joint departmental enquiry had held misappropriation established and both were dismissed in October 1999. The Court held the departmental proceedings were properly initiated under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules despite the acquittal, found no prejudice from document non-supply, and upheld the CAT order dismissing their challenge.

> For these reasons, the Court sees no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197684988/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Ex. Const. Satbir Singh and Anr. vs National Capital Territory of Delhi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-12-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(C) No. 196/2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197684988/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; dismissal for misappropriation of recovered cash sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0013)

## Delhi Police Sub-Inspector vs Union of India & Ors. (CW-2015-0020)

**Record:** CW-2015-0020 (compiler id CWC-1190); case GAP3-42-005
**Title:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector vs Union of India & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S. Ravindra Bhat; Vipin Sanghi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 5484/2004
**Judgment:** 2015-01-30 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1982-11-19 (1982)
**Place:** Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: Special Branch, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980; Delhi Police Act 1978
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Special Branch, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court (S. Ravindra Bhat and Vipin Sanghi, JJ.) on 30 January 2015 dismissed the writ petition of Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and upheld his dismissal from service. The court recorded that he wilfully absented himself from ASIAD control-room duty on 19 November 1982 despite direct orders, and in December 1982 circulated leaflets among Special Branch staff pressing personnel demands and instigating formation of a Delhi Police union. After an earlier dismissal was set aside on procedural grounds, a fresh enquiry held both charges proved and he was dismissed again on 4 June 1991. The court found no arbitrariness in the Disciplinary Authority's order, held principles of natural justice were adhered to, and declined to interfere with the Tribunal's orders. This is an internal-discipline case with no civilian victim. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> From the above discussion, we conclude that there is no arbitrariness in order of the Disciplinary Authority and, principles of natural justice have been adhered to by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority has proved both the charges on preponderance of probability, for which sufficient evidence had been led during the DE proceedings.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3182707/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector vs Union of India & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-01-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(C) 5484/2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3182707/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal of SI for insubordination and union activity upheld; no civilian victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0020)

## Dabri Police Sub-Inspector v. State (NCT of Delhi), CBI (CW-2015-0005)

**Record:** CW-2015-0005 (compiler id CWC-0115); case DELHI-024; aliases: CWC-1426
**Title:** Dabri Police Sub-Inspector v. State (NCT of Delhi), CBI
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: T. S. Thakur; Kurian Joseph; R. Banumathi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015 / Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015 (SLP(Crl) 8919/2014)
**Judgment:** 2015-04-07 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-01-12 (2001)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Dabri; police station or unit: Police Station Dabri; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, P.S. Dabri (1 in record)
**Victims:** Dabri resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court dismissed SI 's appeal and finally upheld his conviction by the Special Judge (CBI), Delhi (CC 194/2001) and confirmed by the Delhi High Court (CRL.A. 326/2008), under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court recorded that as a Sub-Inspector he demanded a bribe of Rs. 25,000 for releasing the nephew of the complainant, and the CBI Anti-Corruption Branch laid a trap on 13 January 2001. It analysed the penology of corruption offences, held the Act gives no scope for reform-based leniency, and observed that the keeper entrusted with law enforcement had become the poacher. The Court confirmed two years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs. 15,000 fine on each count. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As noticed by the High Court in the impugned judgment itself, the appellant was the sub-inspector of police entrusted with the task of law enforcement. The keeper had become the poacher. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the punishment awarded by the trial court and confirmed in appeal.

**Sources (4):** [orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net](https://orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net/cms-cnr-data/supreme_court_data/pdf_files/jonew/courtnic/rop/2014/33575/rop_260166.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158999469/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/prevention-of-corruption-act-gives-no-scope-for-reform-hence-misplaced-leniency-should-not-be-shown-supreme-court/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122227961/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Dabri Police Sub-Inspector v. State (NCT of Delhi), CBI
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015 (SLP(Crl) 8919/2014)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2015-04-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015 (SLP(Crl) 8919/2014)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net/cms-cnr-data/supreme_court_data/pdf_files/jonew/courtnic/rop/2014/33575/rop_260166.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158999469/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/prevention-of-corruption-act-gives-no-scope-for-reform-hence-misplaced-leniency-should-not-be-shown-supreme-court/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122227961/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment PDF verified; SI's ss.7/13 PC Act conviction and 2-yr sentence finally upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0005)

## Seelampur Police Head Constable (Reader to Special Executive Magistrate) vs C.B.I. (CW-2015-0016)

**Record:** CW-2015-0016 (compiler id CWC-0677); case GAP7-008
**Title:** Seelampur Police Head Constable (Reader to Special Executive Magistrate) vs C.B.I.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Suresh Kait
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. 15/2000
**Judgment:** 2015-09-21 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-08-01 (1995)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Seelampur; police station or unit: SEM Court, Seelampur, East District; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (Reader to Special Executive Magistrate), SEM Court, Seelampur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Seelampur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Head Constable, Reader to the Special Executive Magistrate at Seelampur, demanded Rs.1,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] for cancellation of non-bailable warrants in Section 107/151 CrPC proceedings and signed a warrant-cancellation robkar bearing the SEM seal though the Magistrate had passed no such order. The CBI trap recovered the tainted money from his pant, and a handwriting expert proved his signature on the slip. The trial court convicted him in December 1999 under Sections 7 and 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the PC Act (2 years RI each). The High Court confirmed guilt but reduced each term to one year RI with fine, concurrent, noting the 20-year ordeal and loss of service, with surrender in two weeks. Incident month August 1995 only; day not stated.

> no discrepancy in the impugned judgment dated 14.12.1999 whereby the appellant was held guilty for the charged offences.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/135209359/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 44
**display title redacted:** Seelampur Police Head Constable (Reader to Special Executive Magistrate) vs C.B.I.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. 15/2000', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2015-09-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. 15/2000', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/135209359/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bribery conviction of HC confirmed on handwriting + trap proof; sentence cut to 1y RI each count.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0016)

## Delhi Police Constable v. State of Delhi; \[name withheld\] v. State; \[name withheld\] v. State; \[name withheld\] v. State (CW-2015-0031)

**Record:** CW-2015-0031 (compiler id CWC-0923); case DELHI-004
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable v. State of Delhi; \[name withheld\] v. State; \[name withheld\] v. State; \[name withheld\] v. State
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Sanjiv Khanna; R. K. Gauba
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 112/2000, 135/2000, 148/2000 & 202/2000
**Judgment:** 2015-10-19 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-03-17 (1992)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: AATS, North-East District; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 342
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, AATS, North-East District; Constable, AATS, North-East District; Head Constable, AATS, North-East District; Constable, AATS, North-East District (4 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Division Bench upheld murder and wrongful-confinement convictions of four AATS (North-East) policemen for torturing a Delhi man to death. Picked up from his New Seelampur home in the early hours of 11 March 1992, he was kept in wholly unauthorised captivity, beaten over six days, and dumped critically injured at a private nursing home on 16 March 1992; he died on 17 March 1992. The court held the chain of circumstances complete and drew the custodial-death burden against the policemen, upholding Sections 302/34 and 342/34 while setting aside only the Section 330/34 count for want of extortion purpose. The convicts were directed to surrender within 15 days, and compensation to the next of kin under Section 357-A CrPC was recommended to DSLSA. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The conviction and sentences passed for the offences under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and section 342 read with section 34 IPC are upheld against each of the four appellants.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27016926/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 82
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable v. State of Delhi; \[name withheld\] v. State; \[name withheld\] v. State; \[name withheld\] v. State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 112/2000, 135/2000, 148/2000 & 202/2000', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2015-10-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 112/2000, 135/2000, 148/2000 & 202/2000', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27016926/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld murder + wrongful-confinement convictions of 4 AATS policemen.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0031)

## Delhi Police Head Constable v. State of NCT of Delhi (Delhi Police personnel v. State) (CW-2015-0011)

**Record:** CW-2015-0011 (compiler id CWC-0343); case SUPREM-028
**Title:** Delhi Police Head Constable v. State of NCT of Delhi (Delhi Police personnel v. State)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla; Uday Umesh Lalit
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 447 and 484 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2015-12-16 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-08-01 (1980)
**Place:** North Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Andha Mughal Police Post; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 330
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Andha Mughal Police Post, Delhi Police; Constable, Andha Mughal Police Post, Delhi Police; Constable, Andha Mughal Police Post, Delhi Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of three Delhi policemen convicted for illegally confining a Delhi man @ a Delhi man at Andha Mughal police post from 1 to 5 August 1980, beating him every few hours to extort a theft confession, then burning him alive when the head constable poured kerosene and the constables lit matches. The Court believed the magistrate-recorded dying declaration naming all three, corroborated by extensive bruises at post-mortem, and rejected the suicide and alibi defences. All three kept life sentences under Section 302 read with Section 34 with Rs 5,000 fine, with two also serving two years under Section 330. The convictions came 35 years after the crime. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Having regard to our above conclusions, we do not find any merit in both the appeals. The appeals fail and the same are dismissed.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163386750/); [supremecourtcases.com](https://www.supremecourtcases.com/narender-kumar-v-state-of-nct-of-delhi/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/createfile/67358/tp:pd)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Head Constable v. State of NCT of Delhi (Delhi Police personnel v. State)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 447 and 484 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2015-12-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 447 and 484 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163386750/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.supremecourtcases.com/narender-kumar-v-state-of-nct-of-delhi/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/createfile/67358/tp:pd', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Life maintained for torturing detainee then burning him alive; dying declaration believed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0011)

## Patel Nagar Police Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.; \[name withheld\] vs C.B.I.; \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] vs C.B.I.; Kewal Kishan Arora vs C.B.I. (CW-2015-0012)

**Record:** CW-2015-0012 (compiler id CWC-0112); case SWCUSTOD-020
**Title:** Patel Nagar Police Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.; \[name withheld\] vs C.B.I.; \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] vs C.B.I.; Kewal Kishan Arora vs C.B.I.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Indermeet Kaur
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. Nos. 1220, 1167, 1423 & 1066/2012
**Judgment:** 2015-12-22 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1986-08-22 (1986)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Patel Nagar; police station or unit: P.S. Patel Nagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part I; IPC 34; IPC 342
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, P.S. Patel Nagar; Sub-Inspector, P.S. Patel Nagar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Patel Nagar man; Patel Nagar man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 10 yrs; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court upheld the CBI-court conviction of two Patel Nagar Sub-Inspectors for beating a Patel Nagar man to death in custody over an unmet illegal demand of Rs 10,000. On the intervening night of 22-23 August 1986 the officers picked up a Patel Nagar man from home, beat him and his intervening uncle a Patel Nagar man continuously en route and at the station, and a Patel Nagar man died with ten ante-mortem blunt injuries; the police then took him to hospitals to cover up the death. Relying on the nephew's complaint-FIR corroborated by medical evidence, the Court maintained 10 years RI under Section 304-I read with Section 34 plus one year under Section 342/34 and a Rs 25,000 fine from each convict payable as compensation to the widow (Rs 50,000 total), while acquitting a constable and the CFSL Scientific Officer co-accused and setting aside the Section 218/109 convictions. The appellants denied the charges and pleaded false implication. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It appears that the perverted minds of the two Senior Divisional Officers was not satisfied till they had beaten Gopi to death which was only because the poor man could not meet their illegal demand of Rs.10,000/-

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44744771/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/delhi-hc-upholds-conviction-of-police-officers-in-a-19-year-old-custodial-death-case)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 69
**display title redacted:** Patel Nagar Police Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.; \[name withheld\] vs C.B.I.; \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] vs C.B.I.; Kewal Kishan Arora vs C.B.I.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['compensation_inr', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'CRL.A. Nos. 1220, 1167, 1423 & 1066/2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2015-12-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'CRL.A. Nos. 1220, 1167, 1423 & 1066/2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44744771/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/delhi-hc-upholds-conviction-of-police-officers-in-a-19-year-old-custodial-death-case', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC conviction upheld per LiveLaw report (primary Indian Kanoon 429 at audit time); two SIs, 10 years RI each.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0012)

## Delhi Traffic Police Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (CW-2017-0018)

**Record:** CW-2017-0018 (compiler id CWC-1188); case GAP3-42-003
**Title:** Delhi Traffic Police Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Sanjiv Khanna; Chander Shekhar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 717/2017
**Judgment:** 2017-03-16 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-07-04 (2004)
**Place:** Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: Delhi Traffic Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980; CCS (Leave) Rules 1972
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Traffic Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court (Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar, JJ.) on 16 March 2017 dismissed the writ petition of Delhi Traffic Police Constable and upheld his dismissal from service. The court recorded his wilful unauthorised absence from 4 July 2004 to 25 February 2009, over four years and seven months at one stretch, compounded by a false written statement about resuming duty and three past absences. It held the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing his challenge was just and fair. The Disciplinary Authority had dismissed him on 23 April 2010 for grave misconduct rendering him unfit for police service. This is an internal-discipline case with no civilian victim. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the factual matrix of the present case, we are satisfied that the order of the Tribunal is just and fair. This is a case of wilful unauthorised absence not for a small period, but for over 4 years and 7 months at one stretch and thereafter again for the period from 6 th April, 2009 till the order of dismissal was passed on 23rd April, 2010.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124454578/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Delhi Traffic Police Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-03-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(C) 717/2017', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124454578/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal of traffic constable for 4.5-year wilful absence upheld; no civilian victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0018)

## New Delhi Woman vs Commissioner of Police & Ors. (CW-2017-0020)

**Record:** CW-2017-0020 (compiler id CWC-1191); case GAP3-42-006
**Title:** New Delhi Woman vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Vipin Sanghi; Deepa Sharma
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 5810/2015
**Judgment:** 2017-04-17 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-06-20 (2006)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: PS Shakarpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court (Vipin Sanghi and Deepa Sharma, JJ.) on 17 April 2017 dismissed the writ petition of Smt. Kusum Chaudhary, widow of Delhi Police Constable, and upheld his dismissal from service. The court recorded that on 20 June 2006 he and a co-delinquent picked up a New Delhi man as a proclaimed offender and, though the Additional SHO ordered his release, demanded and took Rs. 20,000 for the release, with further recorded demands thereafter. It held the complainant's credibility unimpeached and corroborated by a neighbour witness, sustained the serious-misconduct finding, and refused family pension and arrears. The dismissal order dated 2 March 2007 was thus confirmed through appeal, Tribunal and High Court.

> In our view, the aforesaid does not impinge on the credibility of the complainant PW-3 \[name withheld\]. This is for the reason that both Constable \[name withheld\] and Constable \[name withheld\] had together proceeded to the residence of PW-3 \[name withheld\] and they were together when the demand for Rs.25,000/- was made.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107705031/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** New Delhi Woman vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-04-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(C) 5810/2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107705031/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal of constable for extorting money for release upheld; widow's pension plea refused.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0020)

## Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India & Ors. (CW-2017-0033)

**Record:** CW-2017-0033 (compiler id CWC-1189); case GAP3-42-004
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Rekha Palli; Vipin Sanghi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 4577/2017
**Judgment:** 2017-09-21 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-04-15 (1996)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: Special Staff, North East District; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Special Staff, North East District, Delhi Police; Police personnel, Special Staff, North East District, Delhi Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi man; New Delhi man; New Delhi man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court (Rekha Palli and Vipin Sanghi, JJ.) on 21 September 2017 dismissed the writ petition of Delhi Police Constable and upheld his dismissal from service. The court recorded that on 15 April 1996 a four-man Special Staff team including the petitioner illegally picked up shopkeeper \[name withheld\] and his two servants on a false accusation of manufacturing spurious cold drinks, demanded Rs. 50,000, and released them on 16 April 1996 after receiving Rs. 30,000 as bribe. It held this was not a case of no evidence, finding the uncontroverted statement of complainant \[name withheld\] alone sufficient to hold the charges proved, and saw no infirmity in the Tribunal's order. The petitioner had been dismissed on 7 November 1997 after a joint departmental enquiry rejected his alibi defence. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Having examined the record, including the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the order passed by Disciplinary Authority, we do not find that this is a case of 'no evidence'. In fact, we find that there was sufficient evidence before the Enquiry Officer to hold the Petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51246669/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-09-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(C) 4577/2017', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51246669/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal for illegal detention and Rs.30,000 bribe upheld; charges held proved on evidence.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0033)

## Delhi Police Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (CW-2017-0034)

**Record:** CW-2017-0034 (compiler id CWC-1186); case GAP3-42-001
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Vipin Sanghi; Rekha Palli
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 8939/2017
**Judgment:** 2017-10-11 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-01-01 (2009)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13; Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980 r.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court (Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli, JJ.) on 11 October 2017 dismissed the writ petition of Delhi Police Constable and upheld his dismissal from service. The court noted he had been trapped and caught red-handed by the Anti-Corruption Branch accepting Rs. 3,000 as bribe after demanding Rs. 7,000 to stop harassing the complainant's brother (FIR No. 41/2009). A departmental enquiry examining six prosecution witnesses held the charge proved beyond any shadow of doubt, leading to dismissal on 7 March 2013. The court held his later criminal acquittal was on benefit of doubt and not honourable, so it did not entitle him to reinstatement under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. Incident date year-only in judgment; recorded as 2009-01-01. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the impugned judgment does not call for interference and the present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127404609/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 34
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-10-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(C) 8939/2017', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127404609/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal of Delhi Police constable for bribe-taking upheld; criminal acquittal held not honourable.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0034)

## Delhi Police Head Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (CW-2017-0038)

**Record:** CW-2017-0038 (compiler id CWC-1187); case GAP3-42-002
**Title:** Delhi Police Head Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Hima Kohli; Rekha Palli
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 10556/2017
**Judgment:** 2017-11-28 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-02-08 (1996)
**Place:** Delhi; city town: New Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court (Hima Kohli and Rekha Palli, JJ.) on 28 November 2017 dismissed in limine the writ petition of Delhi Police Head Constable and upheld his dismissal from service. The court recorded that he had contracted a second marriage on 8 February 1996 without legally divorcing his first wife, and that a full departmental enquiry in which both wives were examined held the charge of grave misconduct proved. It rejected his plea that the first marriage was unproved, noting corroboration from the ration card, CGHS card and nomination records. Relying on Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, the court held dismissal for such misconduct unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force was not disproportionate. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The impugned judgment dated 07.10.2016 is affirmed and upheld. The writ petition is dismissed in limine alongwith pending application, with no order as to costs.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154434749/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Head Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-11-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(C) 10556/2017', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154434749/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal of head constable for bigamy upheld; misconduct held unbecoming of disciplined force.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0038)

## Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State (CW-2017-0013)

**Record:** CW-2017-0013 (compiler id CWC-0098); case DELHI-007
**Title:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State
**Court:** Delhi High Court; bench: Division Bench: S. Muralidhar and I.S. Mehta JJ. (judgment authored by Muralidhar J.); judges: S. Muralidhar; I.S. Mehta
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 74, 88, 89, 91, 106 and 118 of 2001 / 246 (2018) DLT 35
**Judgment:** 2017-12-14 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-07-30 (1995)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Shahdara; police station or unit: Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police (FIR 231/1995, PS Welcome); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34; IPC 452; IPC 365
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police; Head Constable, Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police; Head Constable, Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police; Police personnel, Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police; Police personnel, Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police; Police personnel, Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police (6 in record)
**Victims:** Shahdara man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 8 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Delhi High Court (S. Muralidhar, J.) upheld the culpability of six Special Staff (North-East) policemen for the custodial killing of a Shahdara man Raided past midnight on 30/31 July 1995 over suspected illegal arms, he was beaten inside his house, while being dragged, on Shahdara flyover and at the Special Staff office, then handed to acquaintances instead of hospital; he died on 8 August 1995 of a traumatic head injury. The Court rejected the hypertension/fall defences and held Section 34 proved for the pre-planned team, but converted the murder convictions to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 since the fatal blow could not be pinned on one accused, sentencing each to eight years' rigorous imprisonment concurrently, cancelling bail and ordering surrender forthwith. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Court is satisfied that although the culpability of the accused for the homicidal death of the deceased has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence of the prosecution does not precisely point out which of the accused caused the fatal injuries.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158287279/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/delhi-hc-uphold-conviction-six-policemen-custodial-death-case-says-not-much-changed-since-d-k-basu-judgment)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 91
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'bench'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '246 (2018) DLT 35', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2017-12-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '246 (2018) DLT 35', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158287279/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/delhi-hc-uphold-conviction-six-policemen-custodial-death-case-says-not-much-changed-since-d-k-basu-judgment', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: 6 policemen's culpability upheld; 302/34 converted to 304-II/34, 8 years RI each.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0013)

## Lahori Gate Police Constable v. State (Through NCT of Delhi); Sher Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi; \[name withheld\] v. State (CW-2018-0001)

**Record:** CW-2018-0001 (compiler id CWC-0093); case DELHI-002
**Title:** Lahori Gate Police Constable v. State (Through NCT of Delhi); Sher Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi; \[name withheld\] v. State
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
**Case number / citation:** Crl. A. Nos. 54/2004, 81/2004 & 198/2004 (against trial judgment 06-01-2004)
**Judgment:** 2018-01-03 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-05-10 (1991)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Lahori Gate; police station or unit: PS Lahori Gate, Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 330; IPC 348; IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, PS Lahori Gate, Delhi; Sher Singh (Sub-Inspector) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Lahori Gate man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Division Bench upheld the convictions of Constable and Sub-Inspector Sher Singh of PS Lahori Gate for beating night-watchman a Lahori Gate man to death. Picked up around midnight on 1-5-1991 and illegally confined at the police station, the victim was beaten mercilessly while his father was asked for bribes for his release; he died on 10-5-1991. The court called it a case where guardians of law became its transgressors, upholding \[name withheld\]'s sections 302/330/348 conviction and Sher Singh's section 304-II conviction with surrender in 10 days. SHO was acquitted for want of a properly framed charge, but the court directed disciplinary proceedings against all including \[name withheld\] for fabrication of evidence. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> To conclude, we uphold the conviction of the appellant \[name withheld\] under Sections 302, 330 and 348 and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The conviction and sentence of appellant Sher Singh is also upheld. Appellant \[name withheld\] is acquitted of the charges against him.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43971311/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 156
**display title redacted:** Lahori Gate Police Constable v. State (Through NCT of Delhi); Sher Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi; \[name withheld\] v. State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl. A. Nos. 54/2004, 81/2004 & 198/2004 (against trial judgment 06-01-2004)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2018-01-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl. A. Nos. 54/2004, 81/2004 & 198/2004 (against trial judgment 06-01-2004)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43971311/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Convictions of constable (s.302) and SI (s.304-II) upheld; SHO acquitted on charge defect — operative conclusion verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0001)

## Delhi Police Constable (Mounted) vs Commissioner of Police & Ors. (CW-2019-0030)

**Record:** CW-2019-0030 (compiler id CWC-1194); case GAP3-43-003
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable (Mounted) vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Vipin Sanghi; Rekha Palli
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 4420/2019 / AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 642
**Judgment:** 2019-04-29 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-03-01 (2011)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: PS Civil Lines; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 354; IPC 34; Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980 r.8(a); Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980 r.10; Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980 r.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (Mounted), Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Delhi Police Constable (Mounted) \[name withheld\] faced a departmental inquiry from April 2011 for outraging the modesty of a woman constable and absence from duty, with FIR No. 42/2011 under Sections 354/34 IPC registered at PS Civil Lines against him and two other police officers. Found guilty departmentally, he was dismissed from service on 28.08.2012, lost his departmental appeal in April 2013, and lost before the CAT in September 2018, though acquitted in the criminal trial in May 2018. The Delhi High Court held the criminal acquittal was not clean and on merits so as to bar departmental proceedings under Rule 12, found he played the main role in the incident, and dismissed his writ petition as meritless. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We find that the petitioner has been held to be guilty of the charges of outraging the modesty of a woman, and remaining absent from duty by a duly constituted inquiry, where he was given due opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses, including the complainant, who had, in no uncertain terms, stated the manner in which the petitioner had caught hold of her inappropriately. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the well considered findings of the IO in the departmental inquiry or with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129495196/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/984977/pawan-kumar-vs-commissioner-of-police-ors/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable (Mounted) vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-04-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 642', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129495196/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/984977/pawan-kumar-vs-commissioner-of-police-ors/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal for outraging modesty of woman constable upheld despite later criminal acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0030)

## Delhi Armed Police Head Constable vs Govt. of NCTD & Ors.; \[name withheld\] vs Govt. of NCTD & Ors. (CW-2019-0032)

**Record:** CW-2019-0032 (compiler id CWC-1195); case GAP3-43-004
**Title:** Delhi Armed Police Head Constable vs Govt. of NCTD & Ors.; \[name withheld\] vs Govt. of NCTD & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Vipin Sanghi; Rajnish Bhatnagar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) Nos. 5926/2019 and 6044/2019 / (2019) 05 DEL CK 0188
**Judgment:** 2019-05-28 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-10-27 (2011)
**Place:** South Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: Delhi Armed Police (custody duty at AIIMS); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980 r.8(a); Standing Order No.125 of 2008
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Delhi Armed Police (DAP), Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Armed Police (DAP), Delhi Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Head Constable and Constable of the Delhi Armed Police were detailed for the safe custody of undertrial prisoner Vikas Yadav, admitted in the ortho private ward of AIIMS, but colluded with him and took him out on the intervening night of 26/27 October 2011, returning only the next morning. Seven prosecution witnesses including AIIMS doctors and nursing staff supported the charge, and a joint departmental inquiry found both guilty, leading to their removal from the force, affirmed on appeal and by the CAT. The Delhi High Court held the gravity of the proved misconduct justified the punishment and dismissed both writ petitions. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities have said enough, and the gravity of the misconduct established against the petitioners is enough to justify the punishment imposed upon them.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113388042/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/988573/ramesh-kumar-vs-govt-of-nctd-ors/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Delhi Armed Police Head Constable vs Govt. of NCTD & Ors.; \[name withheld\] vs Govt. of NCTD & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-05-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2019) 05 DEL CK 0188', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113388042/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/988573/ramesh-kumar-vs-govt-of-nctd-ors/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Removal of two DAP men for custodial collusion with UTP upheld (judgment text cites Oct and Nov 2011).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0032)

## State vs Delhi Police Head Constable (CW-2020-0017)

**Record:** CW-2020-0017 (compiler id CWC-1192); case GAP3-43-001
**Title:** State vs Delhi Police Head Constable
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Vibhu Bakhru
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. 1405/2019 / AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 393
**Judgment:** 2020-03-03 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-07-02 (2003)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: PS Kirti Nagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 409
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, PS Kirti Nagar, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 0.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Delhi High Court (Vibhu Bakhru, J.) on 3 March 2020 allowed the State's appeal and set aside the ASJ's acquittal of Head Constable of PS Kirti Nagar, restoring his conviction under Section 409 IPC for criminal breach of trust. The court recorded that a 9 mm service pistol with 10 live cartridges issued to him on 2 July 2003 was never returned despite repeated visits by police officials, and held his shifting defence versions had little credibility. It reduced the sentence from three years to six months' rigorous imprisonment, noting he had paid the full monetary value of the weapon and faced disciplinary proceedings. The respondent's name is spelled \[name withheld\] in the cause title and \[name withheld\] in the memo of parties. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court finds that the learned ASJ had grossly erred in concluding that the respondent had set up a probable defence. The defence set up by the respondent has little credibility. As noticed above, he appears to be adopting different versions at different times.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107422055/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1030895/state-vs-shamsher-singh/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 56
**display title redacted:** State vs Delhi Police Head Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-03-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 393', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107422055/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1030895/state-vs-shamsher-singh/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC reversed ASJ acquittal and restored s.409 IPC conviction of head constable; sentence cut to 6 months RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2020-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0017)

## Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I. (CW-2021-0007)

**Record:** CW-2021-0007 (compiler id CWC-0103); case SWBRIBER-006
**Title:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Anu Malhotra
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. 289/2001 / AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 1636
**Judgment:** 2021-09-15 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-06-15 (1996)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Keshav Puram; police station or unit: Police Post Shanti Nagar, P.S. Keshav Puram, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2); IPC 186; IPC 201; IPC 511; IPC 224; IPC 332; IPC 353
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Post Shanti Nagar, P.S. Keshav Puram, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Keshav Puram man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Delhi High Court dismissed ASI 's appeal and sustained his CBI-trap conviction, withdrawing bail granted in 2001 and ordering him taken into custody forthwith. The court found that while investigating a kidnapping complaint against a Keshav Puram man, he demanded Rs 10,000 reduced to Rs 5,000 on 15 June 1996 threatening arrest even though the couple had married with family consent; he accepted the tainted notes, then assaulted CBI officers, smashed the hand-wash glass and fled to the police-post roof before recapture. The court held demand, acceptance and recovery proved by the shadow witness and trap party despite minor variations. The concurrent sentences under the PC Act and IPC provisions, with a maximum of 3 years simple imprisonment, were sustained. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> There is thus, no infirmity in the impugned judgment convicting the appellant for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176557525/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/20-years-after-granting-bail-delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-cop-in-bribery-case)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 77
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 1636', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2021-09-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 1636', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2021-10-25', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 25 October 2021, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: \[name withheld\]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://order.law/api/pdf/SCIN010237932021?order=4r4wi', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2021-10-25', 'url': 'https://order.law/api/pdf/SCIN010237932021?order=4r4wi', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176557525/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/20-years-after-granting-bail-delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-cop-in-bribery-case', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC dismissed appeal, sustained PC Act + IPC convictions; withdrew 2001 bail, custody forthwith.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2021-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0007)

## Delhi Resident v. \[name withheld\] (DCP) & Ors. (CW-2021-0022)

**Record:** CW-2021-0022 (compiler id CWC-0795); case GAP2-20-001
**Title:** Delhi Resident v. \[name withheld\] (DCP) & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Najmi Waziri
**Case number / citation:** CONT.CAS(C) 480/2020 & CM APPL. 25054/2020 / 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5574
**Judgment:** 2021-12-07 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2020-08-23 (2020)
**Place:** North West, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: PS Maurya Enclave; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** Contempt of Courts Act 1971; CrPC s.41A; IPC 406; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Maurya Enclave, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.003 yrs; Rs 15,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court held Delhi Police Sub-Inspector of PS Maurya Enclave guilty of criminal contempt for arresting petitioner \[name withheld\] on 23 August 2020 without serving Section 41A CrPC notice, in breach of the Supreme Court's Arnesh Kumar guidelines. The court found the arrest illegal since only Sections 406/34 IPC (maximum 3 years) were alleged, and the petitioner suffered 11 days incarceration before bail. The court rejected the officer's belated apology as showing no contrition and held his highhandedness violated the petitioner's Article 21 liberty. It sentenced him to one day simple imprisonment with Rs.2,000 fine and Rs.15,000 costs to the petitioner, keeping sentence in abeyance for two months to allow challenge. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The court has already held R-3 guilty of committing contempt of court. He arrested the petitioner in breach of directions passed by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1277/2014.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/1-rakesh-kumar-v-vijayanta-arya-7-dec-2021-412063.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/arrest-in-breach-of-arnesh-kumar-guidelines-delhi-high-court-sentences-police-officer-to-one-day-imprisonment-188694); [blog.scconline.gen.in](https://blog.scconline.gen.in/post/2022/01/05/arrest-incarceration-destroys-a-person-and-affects-innocent-relatives/); [sabrangindia.in](https://sabrangindia.in/delhi-hc-sends-police-officer-prison-day-violating-arnesh-kumar-guidelines/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 1
**display title redacted:** Delhi Resident v. \[name withheld\] (DCP) & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-12-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2021 SCC OnLine Del 5574', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/1-rakesh-kumar-v-vijayanta-arya-7-dec-2021-412063.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/arrest-in-breach-of-arnesh-kumar-guidelines-delhi-high-court-sentences-police-officer-to-one-day-imprisonment-188694', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://blog.scconline.gen.in/post/2022/01/05/arrest-incarceration-destroys-a-person-and-affects-innocent-relatives/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sabrangindia.in/delhi-hc-sends-police-officer-prison-day-violating-arnesh-kumar-guidelines/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC contempt conviction verified; SI sentenced to 1-day SI plus fine and costs for illegal arrest.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2021-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0022)

## New Delhi Man vs Union of India (CW-2022-0005)

**Record:** CW-2022-0005 (compiler id CWC-0107); case DELHI-016; aliases: CWC-1431
**Title:** New Delhi Man vs Union of India
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Prathiba M. Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 6670/1998
**Judgment:** 2022-04-26 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-03-31 (1997)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi (Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place); police station or unit: Inter-State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Delhi Police (10 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 15 lakh (Rs 15,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court awarded Rs 15,00,000 with 8% simple interest from the incident date plus Rs 2,00,000 in litigation costs to a New Delhi man, the survivor of the Connaught Place fake encounter of 31 March 1997. Grievously injured while his two friends were killed, he lives with shrapnel in his body and a disabled right arm, and his testimony as the key prosecution witness had convicted the ten policemen. The Court held that injury caused by State action where police officials stand convicted of criminal offences must be compensated at a higher standard than negligence cases, and that the 25-year delay must favour the petitioner who lost the prime of his life. An ad-hoc Rs 1,00,000 paid in 1999 was ordered to be adjusted. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Injury caused due to the state action and that too one, where the police officials were convicted of criminal offences and not some inaction or negligence, needs to be considered at higher standard as compared to those of ordinary cases of negligence and inaction.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30945257/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/708584/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/cp-shootout-416165.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/delhi-high-court-compensation-victim-1997-cp-shootout-197848)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 33
**display title redacted:** New Delhi Man vs Union of India
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-04-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(C) 6670/1998', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30945257/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/708584/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/cp-shootout-416165.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/delhi-high-court-compensation-victim-1997-cp-shootout-197848', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Survivor awarded Rs 15L + interest + costs; verified from judgment text.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0005)

## \[name withheld\] v. CP & Ors. (CW-2022-0021)

**Record:** CW-2022-0021 (compiler id CWC-0113); case DELHI-022; aliases: CWC-1475
**Title:** \[name withheld\] v. CP & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Satish Chandra Sharma; Subramonium Prasad
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 7245/2003 / 2022/DHC/004763; 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1073
**Judgment:** 2022-11-09 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-03-24 (1996)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: PS IGI Airport; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Delhi Police, IGI Airport Terminal 2; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, IGI Airport Terminal 2 (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Head Constable and ASI of Delhi Police were on passport-checking duty at Terminal 2, IGI Airport, on the night of 23/24 March 1996 when a surprise check by the DCP led to the recovery of 75 Dirhams from Kumar's pocket. The court noted that questioned passengers confirmed police officials at the gate were extorting and taking money, and a joint departmental enquiry resulted in both officers being dismissed from service on 20 September 1999. The court held that recovery of foreign currency from a non-traveller policeman plus witness statements clearly established corrupt misconduct, rejecting the plea that it was a case of no evidence. Finding no procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice, the Division Bench upheld the dismissal orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the Commissioner of Police (appellate order, 2002) and the CAT, and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In light of the aforesaid judgments and in absence of any procedural irregularity or violation of principle of natural justice and fair play, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the order passed by the CAT.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/59909112022cw72452003124048-443754.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/policeman-caught-with-75-dirhams-at-airport-delhi-high-court-upholds-dismissal-213900); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-upholds-dismissal-police-constable-caught-taking-money-passengers-airport); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/59909112022cw72452003124048-1436730.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 28
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] v. CP & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-11-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2022/DHC/004763; 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1073', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/59909112022cw72452003124048-443754.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/policeman-caught-with-75-dirhams-at-airport-delhi-high-court-upholds-dismissal-213900', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-upholds-dismissal-police-constable-caught-taking-money-passengers-airport', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/59909112022cw72452003124048-1436730.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC Division Bench dismissed writ; 1999 dismissal of 2 Delhi Police officers for extorting money from IGI passengers upheld (recategorised misconduct/other to corruption/extortion per charge memo).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0021)

## Delhi Police Constable v. State of NCT, Delhi (CW-2023-0047)

**Record:** CW-2023-0047 (compiler id CWC-0914); case GAP2-60-004
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable v. State of NCT, Delhi
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Abhay S. Oka; Rajesh Bindal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 2390 of 2010 / 2023 INSC 622; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539
**Judgment:** 2023-07-17 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-12-28 (1994)
**Place:** Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: I.P. Estate Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** IPC 304A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police, I.P. Estate Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. On 28 December 1994 guard constable, carrying an SAF carbine at I.P. Estate Police Station, went to stop fellow constable from long use of the official telephone, and during a scuffle the carbine entangled in his belt chain and five rounds discharged into the deceased neck, killing him. A Section 304A case was first registered, but after the deceased father complaint the Crime Branch chargesheeted murder, and the trial court and Delhi High Court convicted under Section 302 IPC with life sentence. The Supreme Court disbelieved the alleged motive, accepted the eyewitness account of accidental discharge, and held none of the Section 299 culpable-homicide ingredients proved. It set aside the murder conviction but held the failure to keep the change lever on safety was gross negligence causing death, substituting a Section 304A conviction treated as already undergone after over eight years served. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside and he is held guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/539-arvind-kumar-v-state-nct-of-delhi-17-jul-2023-482021.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186731186/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/supreme-court/supreme-court-modifies-conviction-death-accidental-firing-pistol-safety-position-233101)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable v. State of NCT, Delhi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-07-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2023 INSC 622; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/539-arvind-kumar-v-state-nct-of-delhi-17-jul-2023-482021.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186731186/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/supreme-court/supreme-court-modifies-conviction-death-accidental-firing-pistol-safety-position-233101', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC set aside murder conviction but convicted constable under Section 304A for negligent service-weapon death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-2023-0047](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0047)

## Ram Niwas vs Union of India & Ors.; Raj Singh vs Union of India & Ors. (CW-2023-0019)

**Record:** CW-2023-0019 (compiler id CWC-0126); case DELHI-035
**Title:** Ram Niwas vs Union of India & Ors.; Raj Singh vs Union of India & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Suresh Kumar Kait; Neena Bansal Krishna
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 8139/2010 & W.P.(C) 8141/2010
**Judgment:** 2023-08-01 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-09-06 (1998)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Tughlakabad; police station or unit: Railway Protection Force, Tughlakabad railway station; force: railway
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.8; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ram Niwas (Constable); Raj Singh (Constable) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Tughlakabad resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions of two RPF constables posted at Tughlakabad railway station and sustained their removal from service for bribery. The Court noted they were caught in a Delhi ACB trap on 6 September 1998 accepting Rs 8,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] (FIR 35/98) and were removed after an RPF departmental enquiry in 2003, affirmed on appeal and review. Though a Special Judge acquitted them in the criminal trial in 2010, the Court held the acquittal was a benefit-of-doubt one giving no clean chit. It ruled that a dismissal founded on independent departmental findings on preponderance of probabilities cannot be undone by such an acquittal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The acquittal of delinquent in a criminal case cannot by itself result in reinstatement in service of the petitioner who had been punished in the Departmental proceedings with a dismissal.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78613085/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Ram Niwas vs Union of India & Ors.; Raj Singh vs Union of India & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-08-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(C) 8139/2010 & W.P.(C) 8141/2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78613085/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment text verified on Indian Kanoon; both writs dismissed, RPF removals sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0019)

## State Delhi Woman & Anr. (CW-2023-0020)

**Record:** CW-2023-0020 (compiler id CWC-0578); case SWFALSEI-008
**Title:** State Delhi Woman & Anr.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Suresh Kumar Kait; Neena Bansal Krishna
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. No. 229/2023 / 2023:DHC:5910-DB; 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 725
**Judgment:** 2023-08-01 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-02-19 (2014)
**Place:** Shahdara, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Police Station Mansarovar Park (FIR 103/2014); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 120B; JJ Act 2000 s.23
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi woman; Delhi man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

After a 2-year-old's death in February 2014, Delhi Police (FIR 103/2014, PS Mansarovar Park) charged the paternal grandmother a Delhi woman and father \[name withheld\] with murder and cruelty; the trial court acquitted them of murder but convicted them under s.23 of the JJ Act 2000 (6 months, already undergone), which they were too poor to appeal. The Delhi High Court disposed of the State's appeal against the murder acquittal, holding the investigation terrible and unfair: a fall was never excluded, the rod/stick recovery was not exclusive knowledge, the father was at work, and the child's 5 kg weight showed chronic neglect rather than the alleged starvation. It set aside the JJ Act conviction in the interest of justice, awarded Rs.50,000 each at the cost of the prosecution, and cautioned prosecution agencies against casual appeals.

> The present case is a classic example of terrible investigation at the hands of investigating agency of the prosecution, where despite lacking material substance against the respondents/accused, the prosecution floated the trial.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/judgementphp-488050.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-delhi-police-investigation-unfair-compensate-murder-accused-infant-death-235845); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/murder-case-of-two-year-old-grandmother-father-accused-delhi-hc-grants-compensation-1491127)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** State Delhi Woman & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-08-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023:DHC:5910-DB; 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 725', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/judgementphp-488050.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-delhi-police-investigation-unfair-compensate-murder-accused-infant-death-235845', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/murder-case-of-two-year-old-grandmother-father-accused-delhi-hc-grants-compensation-1491127', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC held terrible/unfair police investigation, set aside JJ Act conviction, awarded Rs.50k each.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0020)

## Badarpur Man vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (CW-2023-0029)

**Record:** CW-2023-0029 (compiler id CWC-0117); case DELHI-026
**Title:** Badarpur Man vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Subramonium Prasad
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 3851/2023
**Judgment:** 2023-10-05 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-09-02 (2022)
**Place:** South-East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Badarpur; police station or unit: P.S. Badarpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, P.S. Badarpur; Sub-Inspector, P.S. Badarpur (2 in record)
**Victims:** Badarpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court awarded Rs 50,000 for a half-hour illegal detention, recoverable from the salaries of two Badarpur Sub-Inspectors. Responding to a DD complaint on 2 September 2022, SI brought the petitioner, against whom there was no FIR, to the station, where SI placed him in the lock-up from 11:01 to 11:24 PM without any formal arrest, FIR or DD entry; the petitioner's complaint to the Commissioner drew no action, and the State did not dispute these facts. The Court held the officers acted high-handedly, that even brief lock-up detention without procedure violates Article 21, and that a career-neutral censure would not deter such conduct. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A meaningful message must be sent to the authorities that police officers cannot be law unto themselves.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3701179/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-delhi-police-compensation-man-illegal-detention-police-lockup-arrest-239438)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Badarpur Man vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-10-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(C) 3851/2023', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3701179/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-delhi-police-compensation-man-illegal-detention-police-lockup-arrest-239438', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; half-hour illegal lock-up detention, Rs 50,000 from SIs' salaries.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0029)

## South East Delhi Man vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others (CW-2023-0054)

**Record:** CW-2023-0054 (compiler id CWC-0955); case SWILLEGA-006
**Title:** South East Delhi Man vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Subramonium Prasad
**Case number / citation:** 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6215
**Judgment:** 2023-10-05 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-09-02 (2022)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi; police station or unit: Police Station Badarpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Badarpur, Delhi Police; Sub-Inspector, Police Station Badarpur, Delhi Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** South East Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court (Justice Subramonium Prasad) held the 2 September 2022 lock-up detention of a South East Delhi man at Badarpur police station for about 23 minutes without formal arrest, FIR or DD entry high-handed and violative of Article 21 and D.K. Basu. SI picked him up from a stabbing spot and SI placed him in the lock-up for no rhyme or reason. Holding the earlier departmental censure an insufficient deterrent and that police cannot be a law unto themselves, the Court awarded Rs 50,000 compensation recoverable from the two officers' salaries. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> He was simply picked up from the spot, brought to the Police Station and placed inside the lock-up for no rhyme or reason.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/judgementphp-4-496559.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-delhi-police-compensation-man-illegal-detention-police-lockup-arrest-239438); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-orders-two-police-officers-pay-50k-compensation-illegally-detaining-man-half-hour)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** South East Delhi Man vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-10-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023 SCC OnLine Del 6215', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/judgementphp-4-496559.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-delhi-police-compensation-man-illegal-detention-police-lockup-arrest-239438', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-orders-two-police-officers-pay-50k-compensation-illegally-detaining-man-half-hour', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC awarded Rs 50k for 23-min illegal lock-up detention; recovery from 2 SIs' salaries.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0054](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0054)

## New Delhi Man v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others (CW-2024-0025)

**Record:** CW-2024-0025 (compiler id CWC-0721); case SWILLEGA-069
**Title:** New Delhi Man v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Subramonium Prasad
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 3851/2023
**Judgment:** 2024-03-12 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-09-02 (2022)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: Police Station Badarpur, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Badarpur, Delhi Police; Sub-Inspector, PS Badarpur, Delhi Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court (Justice Subramonium Prasad) directed Delhi Police to pay Rs 50,000 to vegetable vendor a New Delhi man, who was picked up on a knife-attack complaint (DD No.85A) on 2 September 2022 and kept in the PS Badarpur lockup from 11:01 to 11:24 p.m. without any formal arrest, FIR or DD entry. Liability had been found in the 5 October 2023 judgment; the 12 March 2024 order holds that even half an hour's detention without due procedure violates liberty, that a mere censure is no deterrent, and orders a proper inquiry to fix responsibility and recover the sum from the officer concerned. Both SIs had been censured departmentally; respondent 4's appeal against the DCP's censure order was pending.

> The time spent in the lock-up by the Petitioner, even for a short while, cannot absolve the police officers who have deprived the Petitioners of his liberty without following the due procedure established by law.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193126214/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3701179/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-delhi-police-compensation-man-illegal-detention-police-lockup-arrest-239438)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** New Delhi Man v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-03-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(C) 3851/2023', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193126214/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3701179/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-delhi-police-compensation-man-illegal-detention-police-lockup-arrest-239438', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC 12.03.2024 order verified on Indian Kanoon; Rs 50,000 for half-hour lockup detention + recovery matches.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0025)

## Delhi Police Constable v. State (NCT of Delhi) (CW-2024-0011)

**Record:** CW-2024-0011 (compiler id CWC-0648); case SWOTHERM-012
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable v. State (NCT of Delhi)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia; Rajesh Bindal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2012 / 2024 INSC 462
**Judgment:** 2024-07-03 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-06-30 (2002)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Mayur Vihar; police station or unit: Mayur Vihar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police (guard, Mayur Vihar Police Station) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mayur Vihar man; Mayur Vihar woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. On 30 June 2002, Delhi Police constable, posted as guard at Mayur Vihar Police Station, sprayed carbine fire inside the station while on duty, killing his relative a Mayur Vihar man over a personal motive and injuring a lady head constable. Convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, he lost his appeal before the Delhi High Court in 2011. The Supreme Court termed it a brazen murder, rejected pleas of self-defence and grave-and-sudden provocation, dismissed the appeal and upheld the life sentence.

> By no stretch of logic is it a case of any lesser magnitude, and definitely not culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

**Sources (3):** [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/man-killed-inside-police-station-supreme-court-upholds-conviction-constable); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/surender-singh-v-state-nct-of-delhi-2024-insc-462-police-guard-murder-conviction-uphel-1542714); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6687e6f51db9582ee8e43f27)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable v. State (NCT of Delhi)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2024 INSC 462', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-07-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2024 INSC 462', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/man-killed-inside-police-station-supreme-court-upholds-conviction-constable', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/surender-singh-v-state-nct-of-delhi-2024-insc-462-police-guard-murder-conviction-uphel-1542714', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6687e6f51db9582ee8e43f27', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC murder-conviction ruling verified via 3+ independent reports; life sentence of on-duty constable upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0011)

## Delhi Man v. State (W.P.(C) 3476/2013) (CW-2025-0074)

**Record:** CW-2025-0074 (compiler id CWC-1374); case cop-dl-hc-7
**Title:** Delhi Man v. State (W.P.(C) 3476/2013)
**Court:** High Court of Delhi; judges: Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 3476/2013 / 2025:DHC:XXXX
**Judgment:** 2025-06-12 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-05-03 (2013)
**Place:** Delhi, Delhi; police station or unit: Tihar Jail; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** 357A CrPC; Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2018; Article 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Jail Officials, Tihar Jail (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court awarded compensation for the custodial death of an undertrial prisoner killed in a gang fight in Tihar Jail, holding that the State's duty to protect prisoners' lives under Article 21 is absolute. The Court expanded the definition of 'dependents' under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme to include siblings and grandchildren, ruling that marital status of daughters does not affect entitlement. The Court directed immediate payment of ₹2 lakh (difference from NHRC's interim ₹1 lakh) and ordered DSLSA to determine further compensation up to ₹10 lakh.

> A prisoner, whether convict or undertrial, retains all his fundamental rights, including the right to life under Article 21. The State cannot abdicate its responsibility merely because the deceased had criminal antecedents. Compensation for custodial death is not charity, it is a constitutional right.

**Sources (2):** [delhihighcourt.nic.in](https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/68012062025CW34762013_211156.pdf); [lawyerenews.com](https://lawyerenews.com/legal_detail/custodial-death-right-to-compensation-flows-from-article-21-irrespective-of-conviction-or-acquittal-delhi-high-court)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Delhi Man v. State (W.P.(C) 3476/2013)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-06-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Delhi', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Delhi recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2025:DHC:XXXX', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/68012062025CW34762013_211156.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawyerenews.com/legal_detail/custodial-death-right-to-compensation-flows-from-article-21-irrespective-of-conviction-or-acquittal-delhi-high-court', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judge is wrong: the judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, not \[name withheld\].; court_quote (para 18) could not be verified verbatim: confirmed phrases include 'it is the bounden duty of the State to ensure the safety of persons who are in its custody' and Article 21 propositions, but the exact sentence 'Compensation for custodial death is not charity, it is a constitutional right' was not confirmed in the extract.; Rest verified: W.P.(C) 3476/2013, decision 12-06-2025, petitioner \[name withheld\] (mother, later substituted by legal representatives), deceased \[name withheld\] who died 03-05-2013 in Tihar Jail, NHRC interim Rs 1 lakh already paid, DVCS 2018 range Rs 3-10 lakh, dependents include siblings/grandchildren, State vicariously liable.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0074](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0074)

## Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector v. State (Delhi Police personnel v. State) (CW-2025-0019)

**Record:** CW-2025-0019 (compiler id CWC-0125); case DELHI-034; aliases: CWC-1424
**Title:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector v. State (Delhi Police personnel v. State)
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Neena Bansal Krishna
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. 315/2021 with CRL.A. 319/2021 / 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1576
**Judgment:** 2025-09-26 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2017-08-27 (2017)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Khichripur; police station or unit: Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of ASI under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Special Judge (Complaint Case 183/2019), while acquitting him under Section 120B IPC and acquitting co-appellants Mukul Kumar and \[name withheld\] entirely. The Court found proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 27 August 2017 \[name withheld\] handed an envelope containing Rs. 50,000 with a copy of Mukul Kumar's interview letter to the complainant Additional Sessions Judge, a member of the peon-selection committee, to secure favour in the next day's interview, and the ACB seized the packet. It applied the presumption on motive and held the overt act of offering a bribe established. The upheld sentence is three years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs. 50,000 fine under Section 12. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The conviction of \[name withheld\] is upheld under S.12 PC Act, while he is acquitted for the offence under S.120 B IPC.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/nbk26092025crla3152021143115-632662.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/high-court-upholds-delhi-police-personnels-conviction-for-offering-50k-bribe-to-judge-acquits-two-310984); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/nbk26092025crla3152021143115-632674.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 155
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector v. State (Delhi Police personnel v. State)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1576', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-09-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1576', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-01-27', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 27 January 2026, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: \[name withheld\]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/cl/2026-01-27/M_C_1.pdf', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-04-10', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 10 April 2026, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: \[name withheld\]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/75475/75475_2025_7_44_69992_Order_10-Apr-2026.pdf', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2026-01-27', 'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/cl/2026-01-27/M_C_1.pdf', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}; {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2026-04-10', 'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/75475/75475_2025_7_44_69992_Order_10-Apr-2026.pdf', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/nbk26092025crla3152021143115-632662.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/high-court-upholds-delhi-police-personnels-conviction-for-offering-50k-bribe-to-judge-acquits-two-310984', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/nbk26092025crla3152021143115-632674.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment PDF verified; ASI's s.12 PC Act conviction (bribe to judge) upheld, co-accused acquitted.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0019)

## Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Delhi Police Constable (CW-2025-0027)

**Record:** CW-2025-0027 (compiler id CWC-0645); case SWOTHERM-009
**Title:** Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Delhi Police Constable
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Ahsanuddin Amanullah; Prashant Kumar Mishra
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 24705 of 2023 / 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1117
**Judgment:** 2025-11-12 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated (1988)
**Place:** Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. \[name withheld\] was appointed a Delhi Police constable in 1988, but a 1996 complaint revealed the appointment rested on a forged degree certificate, leading to his dismissal in 1997 without a full-fledged inquiry. The courts below interfered with the dismissal and remanded the matter for a full departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court held that appointment in the uniformed police service on a forged certificate is uncondonable, the forgery stood wholly unrebutted, and no full inquiry was needed; the appeal was allowed and the dismissal restored.

> The fact that once on the basis of a forged degree/certificate, a person gets appointment in the uniformed service of the country, that being the police, which is supposed to uphold the rule of law, the act of the respondent is uncondonable.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/getting-appointment-based-on-forged-degree-certificate-is-uncondonable-supreme-court-310353); [lawstreet.co](https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/appointment-obtained-on-forged-educational-certificate-is-uncondonable-no-full-departmental-inquiry-needed-sc); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/3991120232025-11-12-631341.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Delhi Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-11-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1117', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/getting-appointment-based-on-forged-degree-certificate-is-uncondonable-supreme-court-310353', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/appointment-obtained-on-forged-educational-certificate-is-uncondonable-no-full-departmental-inquiry-needed-sc', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/3991120232025-11-12-631341.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified via LiveLaw report and judgment PDF; dismissal for forged-certificate appointment restored.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0027)

## Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector v. CBI (CW-2026-0006)

**Record:** CW-2026-0006 (compiler id CWC-0102); case SWBRIBER-003; aliases: CWC-0507
**Title:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector v. CBI
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Chandrasekharan Sudha
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. 567/2001 / 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 118
**Judgment:** 2026-01-28 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-11-08 (1995)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Shakur Basti; police station or unit: Police Post Shakur Basti; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Post Shakur Basti, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Shakur Basti resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court dismissed ASI 's appeal and upheld his conviction by the Special Judge, Tis Hazari (C.C. No. 72/99) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court found that while posted at Police Post Shakur Basti, he demanded Rs. 10,000 on 8 November 1995 for not harassing the complainant over complaints by the latter's brother, and received Rs. 5,000 on 9 November 1995 in a CBI trap. It held demand and acceptance proved despite partially hostile panch witnesses and the nearly 30-year delay, and upheld the sanction granted by the DCP (North-West). The Court confirmed two-and-a-half years' rigorous imprisonment with fine under Section 7 and one-and-a-half years under Section 13, concurrently, acquitting him only of the Section 384 IPC charge. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> There is no infirmity in the impugned order relating to the guilt of the accused for the offences charged against him and hence, I do not find any grounds calling for an interference into the same. The appeal, sans merit, is thus dismissed.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/76028012026crla5672001114115-650055.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/30-years-on-delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-police-asi-accepting-5000-bribe-521029); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26629746/); [news.webindia123.com](https://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20260129/4410256.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 41-42
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector v. CBI
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (Del) 118', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-01-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (Del) 118', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-04-10', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 10 April 2026, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: Unnamed personnel); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/16342/16342_2026_12_27_70004_Order_10-Apr-2026.pdf', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-06-29', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 29 June 2026, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: \[name withheld\]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/16342/16342_2026_4_1_71788_Order_29-Jun-2026.pdf', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2026-04-10', 'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/16342/16342_2026_12_27_70004_Order_10-Apr-2026.pdf', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}; {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2026-06-29', 'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/16342/16342_2026_4_1_71788_Order_29-Jun-2026.pdf', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/76028012026crla5672001114115-650055.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/30-years-on-delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-police-asi-accepting-5000-bribe-521029', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26629746/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20260129/4410256.html', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment PDF verified; ASI's ss.7/13 PC Act conviction and sentence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0006)

## Delhi Police Sub-Inspector v. State (CBI) (CW-2026-0044)

**Record:** CW-2026-0044 (compiler id CWC-0796); case GAP2-20-002
**Title:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector v. State (CBI)
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Chandrasekharan Sudha
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. 582/2003
**Judgment:** 2026-01-29 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-04-23 (1996)
**Place:** North West, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: PS Ashok Vihar; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Ashok Vihar, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Delhi Police Sub-Inspector of PS Ashok Vihar and sustained his Tis Hazari conviction for demanding and accepting a Rs.2,000 bribe in Crime No.204/96, caught in a CBI trap on 23 April 1996. The court relied on the independent witness account of marked currency falling from upstairs and the pink phenolphthalein hand-wash test, holding there was no material to doubt the prosecution case. It held the complainant's other complaints were no ground to disbelieve him and that investigation by an unauthorised officer did not vitiate the trial absent prejudice. The appellant died on 2 October 2022 so the substantive sentence (6 months plus 1 year SI with fines) stands abated under Section 394(2) CrPC, but the conviction was upheld on merits with fine surviving. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> PW3 has clearly deposed that he had seen the currency notes falling down from upstairs and that he had picked up the same. PW3 also deposed that the hand wash of the accused had also turned pink when the same was dipped in the sodium carbonate solution. In such circumstances, I do not find any materials to doubt or discard the prosecution case.

**Sources (2):** [delhihighcourt.nic.in](https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/76029012026CRLA5822003_154348.pdf); [askjunior.substack.com](https://askjunior.substack.com/p/daily-judgments-of-30-january-535)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector v. State (CBI)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'CRL.A. 582/2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-01-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'CRL.A. 582/2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/76029012026CRLA5822003_154348.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://askjunior.substack.com/p/daily-judgments-of-30-january-535', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified via official PDF; SI bribery conviction sustained on merits, sentence abated on death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0044](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0044)

## Delhi Police Sub-Inspector v. CBI (CW-2026-0008)

**Record:** CW-2026-0008 (compiler id CWC-0101); case SWBRIBER-004; aliases: CWC-0508
**Title:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector v. CBI
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Chandrasekharan Sudha
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. 733/2002 / 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 140
**Judgment:** 2026-02-02 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-09-25 (1995)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Jama Masjid; police station or unit: Jama Masjid Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Jama Masjid Police Station, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jama Masjid resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 4 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court dismissed SI 's appeal and upheld his conviction by the Special Judge, Tis Hazari (C.C. No. 57/1996) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court found that while posted at Jama Masjid Police Station and investigating Crime No. 187/95, he demanded Rs. 5,000 on 25 September 1995 for not taking adverse action against the complainant, and the CBI recovered the bribe from a Head Constable acting at his instance in a trap at Tis Hazari Courts. It rejected defences based on witness contradictions, tape evidence and CBI Manual non-compliance, and upheld the sanction granted by the DCP (Central). The Court confirmed four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine under each provision. (The judgment labels the Act as 1947, an apparent error for the 1988 Act.). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the light of the materials on record, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgement calling for an interference by this court.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/76002022026crla7332002105024-653740.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-police-sub-inspector-in-1995-cbi-bribery-trap-case-521774); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64677415/); [nationpress.com](https://www.nationpress.com/all/delhi-cops-bribery-sentence-upheld)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 39
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Sub-Inspector v. CBI
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (Del) 140', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-02-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (Del) 140', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/76002022026crla7332002105024-653740.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-police-sub-inspector-in-1995-cbi-bribery-trap-case-521774', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64677415/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.nationpress.com/all/delhi-cops-bribery-sentence-upheld', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment PDF verified; SI's ss.7/13 PC Act conviction and 4-yr sentence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0008)

## Delhi Police Woman Constable (DD Writer) vs Govt. of NCT and Others (CW-2026-0009)

**Record:** CW-2026-0009 (compiler id CWC-0124); case DELHI-033
**Title:** Delhi Police Woman Constable (DD Writer) vs Govt. of NCT and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Anil Kshetarpal; Amit Mahajan
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 8707/2009
**Judgment:** 2026-02-20 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-09-06 (2005)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Ashok Nagar; police station or unit: Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Woman Constable (DD Writer), Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** New Ashok Nagar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Delhi High Court dismissed Woman Constable's writ and upheld her dismissal for corruption caught in a TV sting. Posted as DD Writer at PS New Ashok Nagar, she demanded Rs 200 and accepted Rs 150 from decoy \[name withheld\] to register an NCR for a lost phone on 6 September 2005; the concealed-camera footage was telecast on Star News' Sansani programme. A joint departmental enquiry with Duty Officer HC relied on the video-CD plus duty records and departmental witnesses to hold her guilty. The Court held the sting video was cogent material, non-examination of the decoy not fatal, and concurrent findings of four fora neither perverse nor arbitrary. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This chain of concurrent factual determinations, based on oral, documentary and electronic material disclosed to the Petitioner, does not convince this Court that it is a case of no evidence or there has been a violation of natural justice.

**Sources (2):** [rawlaw.in](https://rawlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/RAJNI.pdf); [rawlaw.in](https://rawlaw.in/delhi-high-court-sting-operation-video-sufficient-in-departmental-inquiry-non-examination-of-decoy-not-fatal-woman-constables-dismissal-for-corruption-upheld/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Woman Constable (DD Writer) vs Govt. of NCT and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-02-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(C) 8707/2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://rawlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/RAJNI.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://rawlaw.in/delhi-high-court-sting-operation-video-sufficient-in-departmental-inquiry-non-examination-of-decoy-not-fatal-woman-constables-dismissal-for-corruption-upheld/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Sting-video bribery dismissal upheld; decoy non-examination held not fatal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0009)

## Haji Mohd. Altaf vs State; \[name withheld\] vs State NCT of Delhi; Rajouri Garden Man (deceased) thr. LRs vs State (CW-2026-0014)

**Record:** CW-2026-0014 (compiler id CWC-0116); case SWFALSEI-004
**Title:** Haji Mohd. Altaf vs State; \[name withheld\] vs State NCT of Delhi; Rajouri Garden Man (deceased) thr. LRs vs State
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Chandrasekharan Sudha
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. 286/2016, CRL.A. 326/2016, CRL.A. 691/2016
**Judgment:** 2026-04-04 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-08-29 (2000)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Rajouri Garden; police station or unit: P.S. Rajouri Garden; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B; IPC 193; IPC 195; IPC 218; IPC 465; IPC 389
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Post Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rajouri Garden man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 4 yrs; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals of lawyer Haji Mohd. Altaf (A1) and SI (A2) and upheld their 2016 conviction for conspiring to frame a Rajouri Garden man in a fabricated gang-rape case on 29 August 2000, to avenge an earlier molestation complaint and extort money. The SI prepared false records, arranged the PCR van and planted hair in the car; a Rajouri Garden man was arrested, beaten in custody and harassed through protracted proceedings until DNA evidence exonerated him and the Crime Branch discharged him in April 2001. The Court held accomplice testimony admissible, observed a more stringent sentence was warranted, and enhanced the compensation to a Rajouri Garden man's legal representatives to the entire fine of Rs 3,00,000. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A2, a police officer, whose duty is to prevent crimes, has in complete disregard to the same, indulged in acts which are in no way justifiable.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10180339/); [lawstreet.co](https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/innocent-man-framed-in-false-rape-case-delhi-hc-upholds-conviction-of-lawyer-si-enhances-compensation-to-3-lakh)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 39
**display title redacted:** Haji Mohd. Altaf vs State; \[name withheld\] vs State NCT of Delhi; Rajouri Garden Man (deceased) thr. LRs vs State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'CRL.A. 286/2016, CRL.A. 326/2016, CRL.A. 691/2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-04-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'CRL.A. 286/2016, CRL.A. 326/2016, CRL.A. 691/2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10180339/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/innocent-man-framed-in-false-rape-case-delhi-hc-upholds-conviction-of-lawyer-si-enhances-compensation-to-3-lakh', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; SI's fabrication-conspiracy conviction upheld, victim compensation raised to Rs 3L.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0014)

## Delhi Police Head Constable vs State NCT of Delhi (CW-2026-0015)

**Record:** CW-2026-0015 (compiler id CWC-0435); case SWBRIBER-008
**Title:** Delhi Police Head Constable vs State NCT of Delhi
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Chandrasekharan Sudha
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. 897/2006
**Judgment:** 2026-04-15 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-04-03 (2000)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi; city town: Patel Nagar; police station or unit: Patel Nagar Police Station, Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Patel Nagar Police Station, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Patel Nagar resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Investigating motorcycle-theft Crime 296/1999, Head Constable of Patel Nagar Police Station withheld the recovered bike's registration certificate and on 3 April 2000 demanded and accepted Rs 300 for returning it; the complainant went to the CBI ACB the same day and a trap caught him red-handed at 4 pm. The Special Judge, Delhi convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act 1988, sentencing him to six months RI with Rs 1,000 fine and one year RI with Rs 2,000 fine, concurrent. The Delhi High Court held demand inferable from circumstances, with recovery, the phenolphthalein test and presence forming a complete chain. Finding no infirmity in the impugned judgment, the court dismissed the appeal.

> In the case on hand, the prosecution has clearly established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through the consistent testimony of PW8 and the admission of payment by PW2. The recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused, along with the positive phenolphthalein test, further strengthens the prosecution case.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48900789/); [tarai24.com](https://tarai24.com/national/from-bike-theft-to-a-cbi-trap-how-a-₹300-bribe-in-1999-led-to-a-delhi-cops-downfall/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 38
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Head Constable vs State NCT of Delhi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'CRL.A. 897/2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-04-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'CRL.A. 897/2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48900789/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://tarai24.com/national/from-bike-theft-to-a-cbi-trap-how-a-₹300-bribe-in-1999-led-to-a-delhi-cops-downfall/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Appeal dismissed; 6-month/1-year RI for Rs 300 bribe upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0015)

## Delhi Police Constable v. State of Delhi (CW-2026-0018)

**Record:** CW-2026-0018 (compiler id CWC-0100); case SWBRIBER-001; aliases: CWC-1460
**Title:** Delhi Police Constable v. State of Delhi
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Chandrasekharan Sudha
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. 862/2004 / 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 428
**Judgment:** 2026-04-27 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-07-26 (1994)
**Place:** South Delhi, Delhi; city town: Mehrauli; police station or unit: Police Station Mehrauli; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mehrauli man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court dismissed Constable's appeal and upheld his conviction by the Special Judge, Delhi (C.C. No. 56/1998) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court found that on 26 July 1994, while posted at Police Station Mehrauli, he demanded and accepted Rs. 1,000 from a Mehrauli man for returning an identity card seized during checking, and was caught in an Anti-Corruption Branch trap. It held the non-examination of the untraceable complainant was not fatal since the panch witness proved demand and acceptance, drawing support from Neeraj Dutta. The Court upheld the sanction granted by the Additional DCP and confirmed one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count with fine, to run concurrently. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case, once the demand and acceptance stand duly proved from the cogent testimony of PW5 coupled with the recovery of the tainted currency, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act stands invoked and shifts the burden upon the accused. However, the accused has failed to discharge the said burden as no plausible or probable explanation has been furnished to rebut the presumption, thereby leaving the prosecution case unrebutted.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/27/76027042026crla8622004151433-670237.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-police-constables-conviction-for-accepting-1000-bribe-32-years-ago-531963); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173170880/); [courtbook.in](https://courtbook.in/posts/delhi-hc-constable-bribery-conviction-upheld)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Constable v. State of Delhi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (Del) 428', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-04-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (Del) 428', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/27/76027042026crla8622004151433-670237.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-police-constables-conviction-for-accepting-1000-bribe-32-years-ago-531963', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173170880/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://courtbook.in/posts/delhi-hc-constable-bribery-conviction-upheld', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment PDF verified; constable's ss.7/13 PC Act conviction and 1-yr sentence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0018)

## Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I. (CW-2026-0020)

**Record:** CW-2026-0020 (compiler id CWC-0114); case DELHI-023; aliases: CWC-0585
**Title:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Chandrasekharan Sudha
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. 1063/2006
**Judgment:** 2026-05-05 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-01-01 (1993)
**Place:** Delhi, Delhi; police station or unit: Special Branch; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(ii); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Special Branch (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court dismissed ex-ASI \[name withheld\]'s appeal and upheld his CBI-court conviction for false passport verification reports. Posted in the Special Branch in 1993 and tasked with detailed police verification of two applicants' personal particular forms, he prepared and submitted false reports certifying fictitious addresses as genuine, pursuant to which passports were issued on forged ration cards. Relying on residents and a postman who testified that no such persons lived at the addresses and no verification was conducted there, the Court held a false report had plainly been given and conspiracy inferable. It sustained one year's RI (Section 120-B) and two years' RI (Section 13(1)(d)(ii)/13(2) PC Act) with fines, concurrently. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, it is apparent that a false report had been given by A1 on the basis of which the passport was issued. Therefore, the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC Act is clearly made out.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55192143/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-ex-cop-in-33-year-old-fake-passport-verification-case-533161); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/06/76005052026crla10632006123632-672221.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'CRL.A. 1063/2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-05-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'CRL.A. 1063/2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55192143/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-ex-cop-in-33-year-old-fake-passport-verification-case-533161', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/06/76005052026crla10632006123632-672221.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; PC Act + 120-B conviction upheld, appeal dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0020)

## Karawal Nagar Man vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (CW-2026-0040)

**Record:** CW-2026-0040 (compiler id CWC-0678); case GAP7-003
**Title:** Karawal Nagar Man vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Sachin Datta
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 9558/2020
**Judgment:** 2026-07-01 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2018-01-16 (2018)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi; city town: Karawal Nagar; police station or unit: Police Station Karawal Nagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (2 in record)
**Victims:** Karawal Nagar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 18.4 lakh (Rs 18,44,400)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Karawal Nagar man was arrested on 15 January 2018 by SI and lodged at PS Karawal Nagar, where he was found dead the next morning, reported as suicide by hanging; the father alleged assault, a Rs.20,000-30,000 demand, and a staged suicide pointing to unexplained blades and ligature material in the lock-up. The Court held an unnatural death in custody, whatever its mode, attracts the State's duty to compensate, without adjudicating criminal culpability, noting the departmental enquiry's negligence finding against the station staff. It awarded Rs.18,44,400 (dependency, estate and funeral components) payable within eight weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> undisputed that the deceased suffered an unnatural death in custody at Police Station Karawal Nagar.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28331275/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Karawal Nagar Man vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-07-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,844,400.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(C) 9558/2020', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28331275/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Unnatural lock-up death undisputed; State duty to compensate; Rs.18,44,400 awarded within 8 weeks.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0040)

## CISF Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) vs CBI (CW-2026-0103)

**Record:** CW-2026-0103 (compiler id CWC-1393)
**Title:** CISF Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) vs CBI
**Court:** Delhi High Court (verified as High Court of Delhi); judges: Vimal Kumar Yadav
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. 578/2010
**Judgment:** 2026-09-22 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-10-28 (2004)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: Sports Cell, CISF Headquarters, New Delhi; force: central_armed
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial), Sports Cell, CISF Headquarters, New Delhi (1 in record)
**Victims:** New Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Delhi High Court recorded that an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) in the Sports Cell of CISF Headquarters, New Delhi, handling the kit allowance of a CISF Inspector who had coached the Indian junior judo team at an Asian championship in Doha, demanded Rs. 5,000 to release the Rs. 10,000 cheque and was caught by the CBI on 28.10.2004 accepting Rs. 3,000. The Special Judge, CBI, Patiala House Courts convicted him on 20.04.2010 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 on each count, concurrently. On 22.09.2026, sixteen years after the appeal was filed, the High Court rejected his defence that the money was repayment of a loan, upheld the conviction and directed him to surrender to serve the sentence.

> The conviction of the Appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is accordingly upheld.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55967950/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Court finding', 'position_explainer': 'A court has made a finding on this allegation.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 53
**display title redacted:** CISF Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) vs CBI
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-10-05', 'scope': 'Copwatch convictions sweep (5 Oct): record written from the judgment text on Indian Kanoon; quote checked verbatim; the officer and the complainant are not named.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Delhi', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "The High Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the 2010 conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, and directed the appellant to surrender to serve two years' rigorous imprisonment.", 'disposition': 'conviction upheld · surrender directed', 'source': 'CRL.A. 578/2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-10-05
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55967950/', 'link_checked': '2026-10-05'}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Checked against the Delhi High Court judgment dated 22.09.2026 in CRL.A. 578/2010 (Indian Kanoon). Trial-court conviction and sentence at para 1, the trap at para 2, findings at paras 50-52, and the order upholding the conviction and directing surrender at paras 53-54. The complainant, a CISF Inspector, is not named here.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0103](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0103)

## North East Man vs The State NCT of Delhi (CW-2026-0099)

**Record:** CW-2026-0099 (compiler id CWC-1389)
**Title:** North East Man vs The State NCT of Delhi
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Navin Chawla; Arun Bhardwaj
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(CRL.) 3031/2026
**Judgment:** 2026-09-25 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-08-21 (2026)
**Place:** North East, Delhi; police station or unit: PS New Usmanpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Article 22 of the Constitution of India; Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating Officer, PS New Usmanpur, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** North East man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court recorded that a man arrested in an FIR at New Usmanpur police station was released by a Karkardooma magistrate on 23.07.2026 because the grounds of arrest supplied to him bore no date or time and gave no details of the incident, as the Supreme Court requires in Mihir Rajesh Shah. Police re-arrested him on 21.08.2026 after POCSO Act offences were added to the FIR, without first seeking the superior officer's endorsement and the court's permission that the Supreme Court prescribes for a re-arrest. The State's counsel, on instructions, accepted that this procedure was not followed. On 25.09.2026 a Division Bench held the re-arrest illegal and in violation of his fundamental rights, and ordered his immediate release on the original magistrate's terms, without expressing any view on the merits of the accusation.

> the re-arrest of the petitioner cannot be justified and is found to be illegal and in violation of his fundamental rights.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64980943/); [advocategandhi.com](https://advocategandhi.com/delhi-high-court-holds-re-arrest-illegal-where-accused-released-for-violation-of-article-22-safeguards-was-taken-back-into-custody-without-judicial-permission/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Court finding', 'position_explainer': 'A court has made a finding on this allegation.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** North East Man vs The State NCT of Delhi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-27', 'scope': 'Past-days sweep (25-27 Sep): record written from the order text on Indian Kanoon; quote checked verbatim; the petitioner, an accused in a POCSO case, is not named.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "The Delhi High Court held the re-arrest illegal and in violation of Article 22 and directed the petitioner's immediate release on the terms set by the magistrate on 23.07.2026.", 'disposition': 'Adverse finding (illegal re-arrest) · release ordered · no compensation', 'source': 'W.P.(CRL.) 3031/2026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-27
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64980943/', 'link_checked': '2026-09-27'}; {'url': 'https://advocategandhi.com/delhi-high-court-holds-re-arrest-illegal-where-accused-released-for-violation-of-article-22-safeguards-was-taken-back-into-custody-without-judicial-permission/', 'link_checked': '2026-09-27'}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Checked against the Delhi High Court order dated 25.09.2026 in W.P.(CRL.) 3031/2026 (Indian Kanoon). The State's concession is at para 13; the finding and release direction at paras 15-16. The underlying accusation is not assessed by the court and is not described here beyond the offences added.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0099](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0099)

## Taleigao Man and Others v. Govt. of Goa and Others (CW-2006-0020)

**Record:** CW-2006-0020 (compiler id CWC-0925); case GOADNH-001
**Title:** Taleigao Man and Others v. Govt. of Goa and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Goa; judges: R. M. S. Khandeparkar; N. A. Britto
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 19 of 2003 / 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1241
**Judgment:** 2006-03-06 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-06-28 (2003)
**Place:** North Goa, Goa; city town: Taleigao; police station or unit: Panaji (Panjim) Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 307; IPC 506; IPC 34; Arms Act s.3; Arms Act s.25
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Panaji Police Station; Police Sub-Inspector, Panaji Police Station (IO, Crime No. 96/03); Police Sub-Inspector, Goa Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Taleigao man; Taleigao man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 30,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Division Bench held that Panaji police illegally handcuffed and paraded accused \[name withheld\] and a Taleigao man through Taleigao on 28-6-2003 without magisterial permission and in knowing violation of the Supreme Court's Citizens for Democracy directions. The court rejected the officers' hideout-panchanama justification as a sham, holding the parading was done only to humiliate the accused in violation of Article 21. It directed the State to pay Rs 15,000 compensation to each victim with a compliance report in six weeks, ordered disciplinary proceedings against the three respondent officers completed within six months with liberty to recover, and made the Rule absolute with Rs 5,000 costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The explanations for handcuffing given are nothing but a sham and are only excuses put forward on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 6 in order to justify the handcuffing of the said two accused inspite of knowing fully well the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Citizens for Democracy (supra).

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/814291/karishma-kamlesh-naik-and-others-appellant-hash-govt-of-goa-and-others-respondent/); [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/india.highcourt.judgement.hcbm050022682003/HCBM050022682003.pdf); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b493b5607dba348f007ed9)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Taleigao Man and Others v. Govt. of Goa and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-03-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 30,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1241', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/814291/karishma-kamlesh-naik-and-others-appellant-hash-govt-of-goa-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://archive.org/download/india.highcourt.judgement.hcbm050022682003/HCBM050022682003.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b493b5607dba348f007ed9', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Illegal handcuffing/parading in violation of Citizens for Democracy; Rs 15,000 each + 6-month DE direction verified in judgment PDF.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0020)

## State through Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Mumbai v. Margao Police Inspector and others (CW-2017-0032)

**Record:** CW-2017-0032 (compiler id CWC-0911); case GAP2-59-001
**Title:** State through Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Mumbai v. Margao Police Inspector and others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Ranjan Gogoi; Navin Sinha
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 1610-1611 of 2007 / (2017) 16 SCC 54
**Judgment:** 2017-09-07 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-05-17 (1994)
**Place:** South Goa, Goa; city town: Margao; police station or unit: Margao Town Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Margao Town Police Station; Constable, Margao Town Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Margao resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 10 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. A Margao resident, an accused in Crime No. 141/1994, was apprehended on the midnight of 16 May 1994 and brought healthy to Margao Town Police Station, where he was interrogated by Inspector and Constable and lodged in the lockup around 1:30 a.m. The Court recorded that he was brought dead to hospital at 2:40 a.m. with 14 ante-mortem injuries sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. The trial court had convicted both officers under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, but the Bombay High Court acquitted them. The Supreme Court held the alibi false, the custody records fudged, and the two officers responsible, setting aside the acquittal, convicting both, and imposing the maximum 10 years rigorous imprisonment each. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Having regard to the circumstances and the absence of any cogent explanation on the part of the accused respondents and taking into account the fact that the deceased was in Police custody and death had occurred in such custody, we are of the view that it is the accused respondents (accused Nos.2 and 5) who, to the exclusion of any other persons, were responsible for the injuries that caused the death of the deceased \[name withheld\].

**Sources (3):** [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2005/23366/23366_2005_Order_07-Sep-2017.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160475685/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a65cbb54a9326332077a092)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** State through Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Mumbai v. Margao Police Inspector and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-09-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2017) 16 SCC 54', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2005/23366/23366_2005_Order_07-Sep-2017.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160475685/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a65cbb54a9326332077a092', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC reversed HC acquittal and convicted inspector and constable for 1994 custodial death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-2017-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0032)

## Emperor v. \[name withheld\] (CW-1926-0001)

**Record:** CW-1926-0001 (compiler id CWC-0494); case SWDERELI-001
**Title:** Emperor v. \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Fawcett; Madgavkar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal (dismissed 7 April 1926); Revision for enhancement of sentence under Section 439 CrPC (decided 17 June 1926) / AIR 1926 Bom 555
**Judgment:** 1926-06-17 (1926, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Surat, Gujarat; police station or unit: Police Department, Surat (Sessions Division Surat); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 218; IPC 193; IPC 196; IPC 465
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Department, Surat (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Bombay High Court confirmed the conviction of Sub-Inspector by the Sessions Judge, Surat, for framing an incorrect record (Section 218 IPC), fabricating false evidence (Section 193), using fabricated evidence (Section 196) and forgery (Section 465), dismissing his appeal on 7 April 1926. On a Government Pleader application for enhancement, the Court held on 17 June 1926 that one year rigorous imprisonment was unduly lenient given the abuse of investigative powers. The Court enhanced each term to two years rigorous imprisonment (concurrent) and maintained the Rs 500 fine under Section 218 IPC. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The offences were of very great seriousness; for the Sub-Inspector abused his powers of investigation of crime in a manner that strikes at the root of the proper administration of justice.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1936780/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Emperor v. \[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1926 Bom 555', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1926-06-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1926 Bom 555', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1936780/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SI conviction for fabricated investigation record confirmed; sentence enhanced to 2 years RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1926-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1926-0001)

## Rampur Police Police Jamadar v. The State of Kutch (CW-1954-0001)

**Record:** CW-1954-0001 (compiler id CWC-0539); case SWEXTORT-002
**Title:** Rampur Police Police Jamadar v. The State of Kutch
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: B. Jagannadhadas
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal by Special Leave / AIR 1954 SC 700
**Judgment:** 1954-03-05 (1954, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1950-04-16 (1950)
**Place:** Kachchh, Gujarat (district at time: Kutch (then State of Kutch)); city town: Rampur; police station or unit: Local Investigation Branch, Mandvi; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 384
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Jamadar, Local Investigation Branch, Mandvi, Kutch (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rampur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court dismissed the special-leave appeal of Police \[name withheld\] of the Local Investigation Branch, Mandvi, upholding his conviction under Section 384 IPC. While checking passports at Rampur village on 16 April 1950, the Jamadar collected a Rampur man's passport and demanded Rs 800 for its return, which was paid on 18 April 1950. The Court held that the implied threat of prosecution and withholding of the passport constituted fear of injury for extortion. The sentence of twelve months' rigorous imprisonment and Rs 100 fine, confirmed by the Sessions Judge and the Judicial Commissioner of Kutch, stood affirmed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the result, therefore, all the contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellant fail and we see no reason to interfere either with the conviction or with the sentence. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/471346/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Rampur Police Police Jamadar v. The State of Kutch
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1954 SC 700', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1954-03-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1954 SC 700', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/471346/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court dismissed special-leave appeal, upholding Police Jamadar's conviction and 12-month RI plus fine under IPC 384 for extorting Rs 800 for a passport's return.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1954-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1954-0001)

## Karjan Police Sub-Inspector of Police v. State of Bombay (CW-1958-0003)

**Record:** CW-1958-0003 (compiler id CWC-1129); case GAP3-19-003
**Title:** Karjan Police Sub-Inspector of Police v. State of Bombay
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: K. K. Desai
**Case number / citation:** First Appeal No. 719 of 1953 / (1959) 61 BomLR 1625 : (1960) ILLJ 66 Bom : AIR 1960 Bom 225
**Judgment:** 1958-09-19 (1958, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1950-01-31 (1950)
**Place:** Vadodara, Gujarat (district at time: Baroda); city town: Karjan; police station or unit: Karjan Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 311(2); Constitution Art. 20(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Karjan Police Station, Baroda district (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Sub-Inspector of Karjan was found at a drinking party in Atali village on 31 January 1950, suspended, charge-sheeted for serious misconduct violating the prohibition-obedience circular, and removed from the force by Government resolution dated 5 April 1952. He sued, alleging denial of reasonable opportunity under Article 311(2) and double punishment. The Court held the departmental enquiry duly completed, the show-cause notice satisfied Article 311(2) with no second hearing required, and Government took a serious view of prohibition defaults. It dismissed the suit with costs, upholding removal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the result the suit is dismissed with costs.

**Sources (3):** [legalindia.com](https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/d-a-kelshikar-vs-state-of-bombay-on-19-september-1958); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/927730/da-kelshikar-appellant-hash-state-of-bombay-respondent/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/345955/d-a-kelshikar-vs-state-bombay)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 32
**display title redacted:** Karjan Police Sub-Inspector of Police v. State of Bombay
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1958-09-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1959) 61 BomLR 1625 : (1960) ILLJ 66 Bom : AIR 1960 Bom 225', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/d-a-kelshikar-vs-state-of-bombay-on-19-september-1958', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/927730/da-kelshikar-appellant-hash-state-of-bombay-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/345955/d-a-kelshikar-vs-state-bombay', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC judgment verified; Sub-Inspector's removal for prohibition-policy misconduct upheld (disciplinary_upheld).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1958-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1958-0003)

## Anand Police Police Prosecutor v. The State of Bombay (CW-1955-0003)

**Record:** CW-1955-0003 (compiler id CWC-1132); case GAP3-19-006
**Title:** Anand Police Police Prosecutor v. The State of Bombay
**Court:** Supreme Court of India
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal (number not stated; HC judgment dated 10-09-1955) / HC judgment dated 10-09-1955, affirmed in AIR 1960 SC 961
**Judgment:** 1959-04-21 (1955, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1954-06-24 (1954)
**Place:** Anand, Gujarat (district at time: Kaira); city town: Anand; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Prosecutor, Anand, district Kaira (1 in record)
**Victims:** Anand man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Bombay High Court on 10 September 1955 dismissed the appeal of \[name withheld\], Police Prosecutor at Anand, upholding his trial-court conviction and sentence under s.161 IPC for accepting a Rs. 250 bribe. The Supreme Court affirmed on 21 April 1959 (AIR 1960 SC 961), holding the courts below proceeded on no wrong principle and the conviction was proper and correct. The trap evidence showed marked notes paid at the appellant's house on 24 June 1954 were recovered from his shirt pocket with matching numbers. The Supreme Court refused leniency, observing corruption by a public servant is a very serious matter; the High Court judgment text itself is unreported and its outcome is verified verbatim from the Supreme Court judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay confirming the conviction of the appellant for an offence u/s 161, I. P. C., for accepting a bribe of Rs. 250/- on June 24, 1954.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/847290/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/641200/ramanlal-mohanlal-pandya-appellant-hash-the-state-of-bombay-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 1
**display title redacted:** Anand Police Police Prosecutor v. The State of Bombay
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court', 'judgment_date', 'court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'HC judgment dated 10-09-1955, affirmed in AIR 1960 SC 961', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1959-04-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'HC judgment dated 10-09-1955, affirmed in AIR 1960 SC 961', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/847290/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/641200/ramanlal-mohanlal-pandya-appellant-hash-the-state-of-bombay-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld s.161 conviction of police prosecutor; affirmed by SC.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1955-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1955-0003)

## Ahmedabad Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & Ors. (CW-1964-0003)

**Record:** CW-1964-0003 (compiler id CWC-1199); case GAP3-46-002
**Title:** Ahmedabad Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: N. M. Miabhoy; N. K. Vakil
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 522 of 1961 / AIR 1965 Guj 283
**Judgment:** 1964-08-28 (1964, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1960-01-01 (1960)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat; city town: Ahmedabad; police station or unit: Ahmedabad city police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Bombay Police Act 1951 s.10; Bombay Police Act 1951 s.25(1); Bombay Police Act 1951 s.25(2); Constitution of India Art.311(1); Constitution of India Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Ahmedabad city police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. Police Constable, aggrieved over medical-leave and reimbursement claims after kidney operations in 1959, carried on propaganda in the force and squatted in a day-long hunger strike at the Sachivalaya entrance to pressure the authorities. A departmental inquiry found gross breach of discipline and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad removed him from service. The Gujarat High Court rejected his Article 311(1) and Bombay Police Act challenges, held adequacy of punishment was for the deciding authority with no breach of natural justice, and dismissed his writ petition, sustaining the removal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It cannot be said that the deciding authority had committed any breach of principles of natural justice when it decided that this was such a breach of discipline as would necessitate the punishment of removal, nor do we think that looking to the facts discussed hereinabove this is a case where we could be justified in interfering with order in the exercise of the high prerogative jurisdiction of this Court.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/447651/hariprasad-raghuram-dave-vs-state-of-gujarat-and-others/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1844128/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Ahmedabad Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1964-08-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1965 Guj 283', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/447651/hariprasad-raghuram-dave-vs-state-of-gujarat-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1844128/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Constable's removal for hunger-strike indiscipline upheld; pure service-discipline matter, no civilian victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1964-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1964-0003)

## Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat (CW-1965-0002)

**Record:** CW-1965-0002 (compiler id CWC-0798); case GAP2-21-003
**Title:** Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Akbar S. Sarela
**Case number / citation:** (1965)6 GLR 958
**Judgment:** 1965-09-10 (1965, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1963-02-01 (1963)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat; city town: Ahmedabad; police station or unit: Navrangpura Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; IPC 165A; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d); PC Act 1947 s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad; Writer Constable, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad (2 in record)
**Victims:** Ahmedabad resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

PSI and his writer constable of Navrangpura Police Station were convicted by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad in a February 1963 anti-corruption trap case for demanding and accepting a bribe, and sentenced to 2.5 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1,000 fine each. The High Court rejected their pleas on sanction, Bombay Police Act protection, and the credibility of trap witnesses, holding demand and acceptance proved. The court dismissed the appeals, holding the sentences adequate rather than harsh, and directed surrender to bail. The incident month (February 1963) is as stated in the judgment; HC appeal number is not stated in the available text.

> If Police officers who are expected to enforce the laws of the land themselves commit breaches of those laws and in addition take bribes for commission of those breaches they must be adequately punished.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1007220/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/603762/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 35
**display title redacted:** Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1965)6 GLR 958', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1965-09-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(1965)6 GLR 958', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1007220/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/603762/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC confirmed bribe-trap convictions and 2.5-year sentences of Navrangpura PSI and writer constable; affirmed by SC (AIR 1968 SC 1323).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1965-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1965-0002)

## Gujarat Police Head Constable (Jamadar) v. State of Gujarat (CW-1976-0002)

**Record:** CW-1976-0002 (compiler id CWC-0440); case SWBRIBER-013
**Title:** Gujarat Police Head Constable (Jamadar) v. State of Gujarat
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: R. S. Sarkaria; P. N. Shingal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 1971 / (1976) 3 SCC 46; AIR 1976 SC 1497
**Judgment:** 1976-04-06 (1976, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1968-07-11 (1968)
**Place:** Surendranagar, Gujarat; city town: Zinzuwada; police station or unit: Police Station Zinzuwada; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(2) r/w s.5(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (Jamadar), Police Station Zinzuwada, Gujarat Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Zinzuwada man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court dismissed Head Constable's appeal, upholding his conviction by the Gujarat High Court under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, after the trial court had acquitted both accused. The Court accepted that a Zinzuwada man, produced at the police station on 11 July 1968 in an abduction-matter investigation, was threatened with handcuffing, lock-up and parading unless he paid, and that an anthracene-powder trap caught the appellant accepting Rs. 500 the next evening. It upheld the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act and rejected the objection under Section 537 CrPC 1898 to conviction under Section 161 simpliciter. The sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment stands, with no separate sentence under Section 161, and the co-accused-Inspector's acquittal was left undisturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1464524/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Gujarat Police Head Constable (Jamadar) v. State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1976) 3 SCC 46; AIR 1976 SC 1497', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1976-04-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(1976) 3 SCC 46; AIR 1976 SC 1497', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1464524/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; head constable's ss.161/5(2) conviction (via HC reversal) upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1976-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1976-0002)

## Nadiad Police Police Inspector vs State of Gujarat and Ors. (CW-1991-0002)

**Record:** CW-1991-0002 (compiler id CWC-0132); case SWOTHERM-003
**Title:** Nadiad Police Police Inspector vs State of Gujarat and Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. N. Singh; Kuldip Singh; N. M. Kasliwal
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 517 of 1989 / (1991) 4 SCC 406; AIR 1991 SC 2176
**Judgment:** 1991-09-11 (1991, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-09-25 (1989)
**Place:** Kheda, Gujarat; city town: Nadiad; police station or unit: Nadiad Police Station, Kheda; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** Contempt of Courts Act 1971; Constitution of India Art 129
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Nadiad Police Station, Kheda; Sub-Inspector, Nadiad Police Station, Kheda; Head Constable, Nadiad Police Station, Kheda; Constable, Nadiad Police Station, Kheda; District Superintendent of Police, Kheda (5 in record)
**Victims:** Nadiad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court held five Gujarat police personnel guilty of criminal contempt for the night of 25/26 September 1989 attack on Nadiad Chief Judicial Magistrate a Nadiad man, who was lured to the police station, forced to consume liquor, beaten, handcuffed and tied with a thick rope, paraded to hospital and photographed, then falsely booked under the prohibition law. The Court accepted its Commissioner Justice R. M. Sahai's finding that the police version was cooked up, calling the episode an onslaught on the judiciary itself. It sentenced Inspector to six months' simple imprisonment, Sub-Inspector to five months, the head constable and constable to two months each, and DSP to one month, with fines, and directed the State to pursue disciplinary proceedings. The Court also laid down guidelines for the arrest of judicial officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Sharma, Police Inspector who was the main actor in the entire incident and who had planned the entire episode with a view to humiliate the CJM in the public eye is the main culprit, therefore, he deserves maximum punishment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1496509/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 52-53
**display title redacted:** Nadiad Police Police Inspector vs State of Gujarat and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1991-09-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1991) 4 SCC 406; AIR 1991 SC 2176', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1496509/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified: 5 police personnel convicted of criminal contempt for assault/humiliation of Nadiad CJM; 1-6 months SI + fines.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-1991-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1991-0002)

## Ahmedabad Police Unarmed Head Constable vs State of Gujarat and Anr. (CW-1993-0008)

**Record:** CW-1993-0008 (compiler id CWC-0797); case GAP2-21-002
**Title:** Ahmedabad Police Unarmed Head Constable vs State of Gujarat and Anr.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: C. K. Thakker
**Case number / citation:** (1993)1 GLR 816
**Judgment:** 1993-01-18 (1993, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 331; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Unarmed Head Constable, Ahmedabad (Rural) police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The petitioner, an Unarmed Head Constable, was convicted with three others in Sessions Case No. 187 of 1980 under Section 331 read with Section 34 IPC for custodial torture inflicted to extract a clue to stolen property, and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The court recorded that the conviction was confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, after which the District Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad (Rural) dismissed him from service in 1984. The High Court held the DSP was the competent authority, the show-cause process was valid, and dismissal for such serious misconduct warranted no interference under Articles 226/227. The writ petition was dismissed and the dismissal from service stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Looking to the facts on the record, it clearly appears that for extracting confession a person was brutally beaten by the petitioner and other officers of the Police force.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934677/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Ahmedabad Police Unarmed Head Constable vs State of Gujarat and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1993-01-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1993)1 GLR 816', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934677/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld dismissal of head constable convicted under IPC 331/34 for custodial torture; conviction affirmed up to Supreme Court.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1993-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1993-0008)

## State of Gujarat vs Vadodara Police Police Sub-Inspector (CW-1996-0009)

**Record:** CW-1996-0009 (compiler id CWC-0143); case GUJARA-014
**Title:** State of Gujarat vs Vadodara Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: R. K. Abichandani; R. R. Jain
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 881 of 1984 / 1997 (1) GLR 229
**Judgment:** 1996-09-25 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-02-18 (1980)
**Place:** Vadodara, Gujarat (district at time: Baroda); city town: Vadodara; police station or unit: Sayajiganj Police Station (Cycle Squad); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Cycle Squad, Sayajiganj Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Vadodara man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 3 yrs; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Gujarat High Court partly allowed the State acquittal appeal against the 31 March 1984 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda, and convicted PSI for the custodial death of cycle repairer a Vadodara man The Court found a Vadodara man was handed by PSI to \[name withheld\], in charge of the Cycle Squad at Sayajiganj police station, on 18 February 1980 and sustained 15 custodial injuries overnight including a fatal head injury with internal haemorrhage. It rejected the defence denial and held \[name withheld\] guilt proved beyond doubt, sentencing him to 3 years RI on each count concurrently plus Rs 10,000 fine payable to the widow. The acquittal of accused 2 to 6 was confirmed and the appeal abated against accused 7.

> Death in Police custody is required to be seriously viewed and must be curbed with a heavy hand.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103927043/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=206991084000&title=state-of-gujarat-vs-gopalrao-bavrao-mohite)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** State of Gujarat vs Vadodara Police Police Sub-Inspector
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-09-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1997 (1) GLR 229', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103927043/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=206991084000&title=state-of-gujarat-vs-gopalrao-bavrao-mohite', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC acquittal-appeal judgment verified; PSI convicted, 3 years RI plus fine to widow.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-1996-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0009)

## Lunavada Man v. State of Gujarat and Others (CW-1997-0013)

**Record:** CW-1997-0013 (compiler id CWC-0756); case GUJARA-001
**Title:** Lunavada Man v. State of Gujarat and Others
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: N. N. Mathur
**Case number / citation:** Special Criminal Application (Art. 226) / 1998 ACJ 97; (1997) 2 GLR 1045
**Judgment:** 1997-02-21 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-11-01 (1995)
**Place:** Panchmahal, Gujarat; city town: Lunavada; police station or unit: LCB, Godhra; SDPO Lunavada; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** PSI, LCB, Godhra; SDPO, Lunavada; Police Constable, LCB, Godhra; DSP, Godhra; ASP, Dahod (5 in record)
**Victims:** Lunavada man, age 29 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Single Judge held that a Lunavada man, a 29-year-old Assistant Intelligence Officer summoned around 1 am on 1-11-1995 by LCB Godhra staff, kept overnight at the Lunavada guest house and humiliated by senior officers before being found dead the next morning, was subjected to mental and psychological torture. Even on the police version of suicide, the court held he was insulted and humiliated for no cause and deprecated the indolent attitude of the ASP Dahod and DSP. It declined to transfer the investigation to the CBI but awarded Rs 2 lakh interim compensation to the widow, adjustable against any future decree, to be deposited with the Registrar and invested for three years, with Rs 5,000 costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> such sort of arrogant behaviour of the police officers definitely leads to mental and psychological torture.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168768/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Lunavada Man v. State of Gujarat and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-02-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1998 ACJ 97; (1997) 2 GLR 1045', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168768/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Mental/psychological torture finding + Rs 2L interim compensation verified; CBI-transfer prayer declined as reported.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0013)

## Jagruti vs \[name withheld\] (P.I.) and Ors. (CW-1997-0005)

**Record:** CW-1997-0005 (compiler id CWC-0146); case GUJARA-017
**Title:** Jagruti vs \[name withheld\] (P.I.) and Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: N. N. Mathur
**Case number / citation:** Special Criminal Application No. 480 of 1997 / 1998 CriLJ 3251
**Judgment:** 1997-05-06 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-12-05 (1996)
**Place:** Vadodara, Gujarat; city town: Vadodara; police station or unit: Gorva Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC; PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Gorva Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Vadodara man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gujarat High Court held it prima facie established that a Vadodara man, a Hubli businessman and known heart patient arrested in the Alembic Chemicals cheating case, was tortured in police custody at Gorva, Vadodara, and that his death on 5 December 1996 was traceable to police acts and omissions. The Court relied on photographs showing injuries on his soles, back and body corroborated by ante-mortem post-mortem injuries, and found no medical care was given despite knowledge of his ailment. It rejected the attribution of death to cardiac arrest from mental tension without examining custodial violence. Holding the facts disclosed a cognizable offence including a possible corruption angle, the Court ordered registration and investigation plus Rs 3 lakh interim compensation to the widow and Rs 15,000 costs. The court held the death prima facie traceable to the police and ordered FIR registration and investigation with Rs 3 lakh interim State compensation; the personal liability of Police Inspector of Gorva Police Station was expressly left open. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A just look at the photographs speaks in volume how the deceased was tortured while he was in police custody.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/766547/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** Jagruti vs \[name withheld\] (P.I.) and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-05-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1998 CriLJ 3251', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/766547/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC judgment verified; custodial torture and death traced to police, Rs 3 lakh interim compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0005)

## Jamnagar Man vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (CW-1997-0019)

**Record:** CW-1997-0019 (compiler id CWC-1198); case GAP3-46-001
**Title:** Jamnagar Man vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: N. N. Mathur
**Case number / citation:** (1998) 1 GLR 61
**Judgment:** 1997-10-17 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-01-08 (1992)
**Place:** Jamnagar, Gujarat; city town: Jamnagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 323; CrPC 154; CrPC 155; CrPC 156; CrPC 157; CrPC 174
**Officers (gated display forms):** District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jamnagar man; Jamnagar resident; Jamnagar resident (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. On 8-1-1992, Jamnagar police picked up petty trader \[name withheld\] with a Jamnagar resident and a Jamnagar resident for interrogation, and DSP called all three into his chamber at about 9 p.m. and beat them with a big stick, a Jamnagar man severely on the chest, stomach and other parts of the body; a Jamnagar man died on the way to hospital. The post-mortem disclosed ante-mortem injuries and a DGP (Crime) inquiry found the custodial-torture allegation true, though the panel attributed death to cardiac arrest. The Gujarat High Court held the death was prima facie traceable to custodial torture in gross violation of Article 21, awarded Rs.1.5 lakh interim compensation to the widow, ordered the dropped departmental enquiry against the DSP to proceed, and directed the police to complete investigation and file a report within two months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As we have found that prima facie, the death of a Jamnagar man is traceable to the custodial torture, it would be just and proper to award suitable compensation as interim measure to Smt. Ushaben Punjani, widow of the deceased \[name withheld\].

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/243728/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Jamnagar Man vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-10-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1998) 1 GLR 61', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/243728/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Custodial death prima facie traced to DSP's beating; Rs.1.5L interim compensation with probe directions.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0019)

## Dadva Woman vs State of Gujarat & Ors. (CW-1998-0001)

**Record:** CW-1998-0001 (compiler id CWC-0154); case GUJARA-007
**Title:** Dadva Woman vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: K. G. Balakrishnan; M. S. Shah
**Case number / citation:** (1998) 1 GLR 613
**Judgment:** 1998-02-10 (1998, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-07-12 (1997)
**Place:** Bhavnagar, Gujarat; city town: Dadva; police station or unit: Umrala Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 14; Constitution Art. 19; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Umrala, Bhavnagar; Lady Constable, Umrala, Bhavnagar; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Botad; Circle Police Inspector, Botad (4 in record)
**Victims:** Dadva woman; Dadva man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

On a PIL by Lok Adhikar Sangh, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court held the night arrest, handcuffing, parading and delayed production of Dadva Sarpanch the survivor, then pregnant, and her husband \[name withheld\] unjustified and violative of Article 21 and the Supreme Court arrest and handcuffing directives. The Court found the couple were arrested between midnight and 1 a.m. on 12/13 July 1997, tied with ropes and paraded in the village with chappals and slates around their necks before a crowd, corroborated by 22 villagers. It directed the State to pay Rs 10,000 each to the couple as exemplary compensation under Article 226 within one month, recoverable from the concerned police officials. The involved officers were ordered kept out of the district during inquiry, PSI being already under suspension. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that not only the arrest of \[the survivor\] during night hours between July 12 and 13, 1997 was absolutely unjustified but was unconstitutional and violative of her fundaments rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and so also the handcuffing of \[the survivor\]'s husband in the evening of July 13, 1997 was also absolutely unjustified, illegal and unconstitutional and violative of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1065600/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** Dadva Woman vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1998-02-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 20,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1998) 1 GLR 613', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1065600/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC Division Bench judgment verified; night arrest/parading held Article 21 violation, compensation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1998-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1998-0001)

## Government of Gujarat vs Ahmedabad Police Unarmed Police Constable (CW-1998-0010)

**Record:** CW-1998-0010 (compiler id CWC-1200); case GAP3-46-003
**Title:** Government of Gujarat vs Ahmedabad Police Unarmed Police Constable
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: S. K. Keshote
**Case number / citation:** First Appeal No. 1075 of 1988 / (1999) 1 GLR 881
**Judgment:** 1998-08-15 (1998, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-01-01 (1983)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat; city town: Ahmedabad; police station or unit: Office of the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad (Traffic Branch); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** GCSR (Conduct) Rules 1971 r.3; GCSR (Conduct) Rules 1971 r.3(1); GCSR (Conduct) Rules 1971 r.26; Constitution of India Art.309
**Officers (gated display forms):** Unarmed Police Constable, Office of the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad (Traffic Branch) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. Unarmed Police Constable of the Ahmedabad Traffic Branch was dismissed after a departmental inquiry proved the second charge of conduct unbecoming a government servant in keeping a mistress, following an earlier penalty of withheld increments for abusive language under the influence of liquor. The City Civil Court decreed his suit, declared the dismissal illegal, and ordered reinstatement with full benefits. On the State's appeal, the Gujarat High Court held police personnel guilty of such character and conduct must be taken more seriously, set aside the decree, dismissed the suit, and thereby restored the dismissal.

> The employees in the police department are under obligation for enforcement of law and order in the country and in case they themselves have come up with such character and conduct it has to be taken more seriously.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/451462/government-of-gujarat-vs-shivabhai-s-makwana/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/879/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Government of Gujarat vs Ahmedabad Police Unarmed Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1998-08-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1999) 1 GLR 881', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/451462/government-of-gujarat-vs-shivabhai-s-makwana/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/879/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Constable's dismissal for unbecoming conduct restored on State appeal; pure service-discipline matter.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1998-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1998-0010)

## State of Gujarat vs Himatnagar Man and Anr. (CW-1998-0005)

**Record:** CW-1998-0005 (compiler id CWC-0136); case GUJARA-007
**Title:** State of Gujarat vs Himatnagar Man and Anr.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: R. K. Abichandani
**Case number / citation:** First Appeal against judgment dated 03.09.1982 in Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 1979, Civil Judge (S.D.), Himatnagar / II(2001)ACC 426
**Judgment:** 1998-12-22 (1998, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1976-04-22 (1976)
**Place:** Sabarkantha, Gujarat; city town: Himatnagar (Raigadh Outpost); police station or unit: Raigadh Outpost, Himatnagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 326
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Raigadh Outpost, Himatnagar, Sabarkantha (1 in record)
**Victims:** Himatnagar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.0 lakh (Rs 1,98,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld Rs 1,98,000 with 6% interest awarded to contractor \[name withheld\], whose right leg was amputated above the knee after on-duty Raigadh Outpost constable shot him in the thigh with his service rifle on 22 April 1976 for protesting the manhandling of his truck driver. The Court held the firing illegal, wrongful and unauthorised, committed during the course of employment, rendering the State vicariously liable and violating the victim's Article 21 right to life. It recorded that the constable had been tried under Section 307 IPC and convicted by the High Court under Section 326 IPC with six months' RI in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 1978, a sentence he admitted in evidence to having undergone. (Re-normalised from the 1980 conviction entry to this verified 1998 compensation judgment.). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The facts which are established in the case clearly show that the respondent No. 2, during the course of his employment as a Constable, had on 22-4-1976, when the respondent No. 1 had come to the Police Outpost, wrongfully and without any justification whatsoever, wounded him by a gunshot which resulted in amputation of his right leg.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/503689/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/455032/state-of-gujarat-vs-govindbhai-jakhubhai-and-another/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** State of Gujarat vs Himatnagar Man and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1998-12-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 198,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'II(2001)ACC 426', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/503689/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/455032/state-of-gujarat-vs-govindbhai-jakhubhai-and-another/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Re-normalised to verified 1998 HC judgment upholding Rs 1.98 lakh compensation; 1980 Sec 326 conviction recital confirmed within it.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1998-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1998-0005)

## H. N. Rao vs State of Gujarat (CW-2000-0005)

**Record:** CW-2000-0005 (compiler id CWC-0144); case GUJARA-015
**Title:** H. N. Rao vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: R. M. Doshit
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 1912 of 2000
**Judgment:** 2000-07-21 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-01-01 (1993)
**Place:** Kheda, Gujarat; city town: Nadiad; police station or unit: Nadiad ACB Police Station (case registered 1993); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** H. N. Rao (Police Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Gujarat High Court dismissed former PSI H. N. Rao challenge to his dismissal from service following his 5 May 1998 conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Special Case 7 of 1994 under Section 161 IPC (1 year RI plus Rs 1,000 fine) and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (2 years RI plus Rs 2,000 fine). The petitioner contended dismissal during the pendency of his criminal appeal without hearing or GPSC consultation was illegal. The Court held, following the Full Bench in P. D. Waghela and the Supreme Court in Tulsiram Patel, that a trial-court conviction sustains dismissal under the second proviso to Article 311(2) despite a pending appeal with no hearing or GPSC consultation required. It found the dismissal wholly justified and discharged the notice. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence imposed upon him, the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service is wholly justified.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1925276/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/438199/h-n-rao-vs-state-of-gujarat/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** H. N. Rao vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-07-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Special Civil Application No. 1912 of 2000', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1925276/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/438199/h-n-rao-vs-state-of-gujarat/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC judgment verified; dismissal on trial-court conviction upheld despite pending appeal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2000-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0005)

## State of Gujarat vs Purnimaben wd/o Vinodbhai Himatbhai Kapasi and Others (CW-2000-0007)

**Record:** CW-2000-0007 (compiler id CWC-0679); case GAP9-003
**Title:** State of Gujarat vs Purnimaben wd/o Vinodbhai Himatbhai Kapasi and Others
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: J. N. Bhatt
**Case number / citation:** First Appeal under Section 96 CPC against Civil Suit No.5051 of 1986, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad
**Judgment:** 2000-08-29 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1985-07-24 (1985)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat; city town: Ahmedabad; police station or unit: Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ahmedabad man, age 38 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 4.3 lakh (Rs 4,35,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. On 24 July 1985 at about 6 p.m., PSI shot dead an Ahmedabad man, a 38-year-old tax practitioner, near Nava Darwaja, Ahmedabad. The family sued the State and the PSI for Rs.5 lakh, alleging unauthorised, negligent firing; the City Civil Court decreed Rs.4,35,000 with 10% interest in 1999, holding the deceased a victim of the PSI's negligent and tortious act. The State appealed, claiming the death was caused by private firing during communal riots. The High Court held the firing was without permission and authority, that no mob or curfew was proved, and that the deceased was shot dead without reason by the negligent, reckless and unauthorised act; it dismissed the appeal with costs, confirmed the decree, and directed deposit of the decretal dues within six months.

> In the result, the appeal shall stand dismissed with costs. Obviously, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1514030/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 58
**display title redacted:** State of Gujarat vs Purnimaben wd/o Vinodbhai Himatbhai Kapasi and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-08-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 435,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'First Appeal under Section 96 CPC against Civil Suit No.5051 of 1986, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1514030/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC confirmed Rs.4,35,000 decree for fatal unauthorised police shooting; State appeal dismissed with costs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2000-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0007)

## \[name withheld\] vs P.K. Menon or his Successor-in-Office (CW-2002-0017)

**Record:** CW-2002-0017 (compiler id CWC-1202); case GAP3-47-003
**Title:** \[name withheld\] vs P.K. Menon or his Successor-in-Office
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Sharad D. Dave
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 6711 of 1989 / (2002)2GLR1126
**Judgment:** 2002-01-15 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-04-04 (1988)
**Place:** Gandhinagar, Gujarat; city town: Gandhinagar; police station or unit: Group Centre, CRPF, Gandhinagar; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** CRPF Act s.10(m); CRPF Act s.10(n); CRPF Act s.12(1)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Group Centre, CRPF, Gandhinagar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Gujarat High Court (Sharad D. Dave, J.) on 15 January 2002 rejected the writ petition of CRPF Constable and confirmed his dismissal from service ordered on 20 April 1988. He had pleaded guilty before the Assistant Commandant-cum-Judicial Magistrate to absence without leave in April 1988 and refusal to accept a suspension order, was convicted under Sections 10(m)/(n) of the CRPF Act and sentenced to 7 days rigorous imprisonment, then dismissed under Section 12(1). The court held no separate departmental inquiry was required where dismissal follows conviction, termed refusal of the suspension order grave misconduct, and declined to treat dismissal as disproportionate given armed-force discipline. No civilian victim is involved; this is an internal-indiscipline dismissal upheld on judicial review. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> If the appellant was not keeping good health, he should have taken sick leave and should remain in the hospital. Later on, by not accepting the suspension order, he has committed grave misconduct.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1798477/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/452162/jivan-ganpati-appellant-hash-pk-menon-or-his-successor-in-office-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] vs P.K. Menon or his Successor-in-Office
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-01-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2002)2GLR1126', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1798477/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/452162/jivan-ganpati-appellant-hash-pk-menon-or-his-successor-in-office-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** CRPF dismissal for absence/refusal of suspension order upheld; internal indiscipline, no civilian victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0017)

## District Police Head Constable vs State of Gujarat (CW-2004-0013)

**Record:** CW-2004-0013 (compiler id CWC-1203); case GAP3-47-004
**Title:** District Police Head Constable vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: R.M. Doshit
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 3365 of 1998 / \[2005(104)FLR215\]
**Judgment:** 2004-08-05 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-01-01 (1988)
**Place:** Valsad, Gujarat; city town: Vansda; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Bombay Civil Services Rules R.189A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, District Police, Valsad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The Gujarat High Court (R.M. Doshit, J.) on 5 August 2004 dismissed with costs the writ petition of retired Head Constable and upheld the State Government order deducting Rs. 589.50 per month from his pension for ten years. Disciplinary proceedings begun in 1993 over 1988 misconduct amounting to lack of integrity in the investigation of M. Case No. 6 of 1987 (Vansda) had continued after his 1995 retirement under Rule 189A of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. The court rejected challenges based on competence, delay, denied documents and want of personal hearing, holding lack of integrity proved and the deduction not unconscionably disproportionate. No civilian victim is identified; the penalty is a pension deduction rather than dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case, the guilt established against the petitioner reveals lack of integrity. The petitioner had also acted in a manner not befitting to a Police Officer.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/260980/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/createfile/745043/tp:pd)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** District Police Head Constable vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2004-08-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '\[2005(104)FLR215\]', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/260980/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/createfile/745043/tp:pd', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Ten-year pension deduction for lack of integrity upheld; borderline-major disciplinary penalty, no dismissal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2004-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0013)

## Vadodara Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat (CW-2004-0003)

**Record:** CW-2004-0003 (compiler id CWC-0757); case GUJARA-013
**Title:** Vadodara Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Akil Kureshi
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 11503 of 1994
**Judgment:** 2004-09-06 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-06-21 (1988)
**Place:** Vadodara, Gujarat; city town: Vadodara; police station or unit: City Police Station, Baroda (Vadodara); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Lock-up guard, City Police Station, Baroda (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Gujarat High Court upheld the removal from service of Police Constable, lock-up guard at Baroda City police station, who on 21.06.1988 single-handedly took detainee Nazirkhan Pathan to the toilet without informing the station officer, left the door unbolted and unguarded, and let the accused escape. The Court termed the conduct gross negligence and dereliction of duty shocking for a police officer, held the criminal acquittal on the distinct charge of deliberate facilitation did not conclude the disciplinary matter, and found removal commensurate given two prior proved serious misconducts. The petition was rejected and the Rule discharged. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case, I find that the petitioner was held to have committed serious misconduct of gross negligence whereby a person who was accused in criminal case was allowed to escape from the Police lock-up. As a Police Constable this would be a very serious lapse on the part of the petitioner.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/519548/); [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/india.highcourt.judgement.gjhc240168491994/GJHC240168491994.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Vadodara Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2004-09-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Special Civil Application No. 11503 of 1994', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/519548/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://archive.org/download/india.highcourt.judgement.gjhc240168491994/GJHC240168491994.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC rejected challenge and upheld removal of lock-up guard for gross negligence letting detainee escape.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2004-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0003)

## Gujarat Woman vs District Superintendent of Police (CW-2004-0016)

**Record:** CW-2004-0016 (compiler id CWC-1201); case GAP3-47-002
**Title:** Gujarat Woman vs District Superintendent of Police
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Anant S. Dave
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 6520 of 1995 / (2005)2GLR1291
**Judgment:** 2004-12-09 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1985-10-12 (1985)
**Place:** Gujarat; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Bombay Police Act 1951 s.27(C); Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, District Police, Gujarat Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Gujarat woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Gujarat High Court (Anant S. Dave, J.) on 9 December 2004 rejected the Article 226 petition and confirmed the dismissal from service of subordinate police officer ordered on 31 May 1989 by the District Superintendent of Police. A departmental inquiry (conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tharad Division) had held proved the charge that he brought a tribal woman to police quarter Room No. 59, 'C' Block, with ill-intention, framing it as moral turpitude and conduct unbecoming a member of the police force. The court held the charge conclusively proved on reliable evidence, found no illegality in the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders, and refused to substitute a lesser punishment. The dismissal had already survived departmental appeal, revision to the Director General of Police and a second revision to the Home Department.

> In the present case, as rightly submitted in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the District Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 1 herein, the misconduct, which has been proved in the departmental enquiry and upheld by the Disciplinary Authority, as well as the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities, reflected the nature of seriousness of the charge of unbecoming of a member of the police force, where the modesty of a tribal lady was at stake and she was brought to the police quarter with ill-intention by the petitioner and, therefore, this is not a fit case where the Court would like to show any leniency.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/415984/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/748039/mulchandbhai-n-parmar-vs-district-superintendent)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Gujarat Woman vs District Superintendent of Police
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2004-12-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2005)2GLR1291', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/415984/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/748039/mulchandbhai-n-parmar-vs-district-superintendent', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal for moral-turpitude misconduct upheld after full departmental hierarchy; writ rejected.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2004-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0016)

## Bhadaran Police Writer Constable vs State of Gujarat (CW-2005-0017)

**Record:** CW-2005-0017 (compiler id CWC-0799); case GAP2-22-002
**Title:** Bhadaran Police Writer Constable vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Akshay H. Mehta
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1999
**Judgment:** 2005-09-02 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-07-06 (1993)
**Place:** Anand, Gujarat (district at time: Kheda); city town: Bhadaran; police station or unit: Bhadaran Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304A; IPC 285
**Officers (gated display forms):** Writer Constable, Bhadaran Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bhadaran resident; Bhadaran resident; Bhadaran resident (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. Writer Constable of Bhadaran Police Station was deployed to keep a crowd away from a spilled inflammable naphtha tanker on 6-7-1993; the prosecution proved he threw a burning matchstick, igniting the spill and killing three bystanders while injuring several others. The trial court convicted him under Sections 304 Part-II, 324, 435 and 285 IPC. The High Court held the deaths resulted solely from his rash and negligent act but without the intention or knowledge for culpable homicide or hurt, altering the conviction to Section 304A with 1 year simple imprisonment and fine while retaining the Section 285 conviction. The appeal was partly allowed with two months granted to surrender; Bhadaran was in Kheda district at the time and is now in Anand district.

> It is the negligent and/or rash act of the appellant which has directly caused extensive fire resulting into the injuries to various persons, three persons out of these, succumbed to their injuries. This is criminal negligence and rashness on the part of the appellant.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153732/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/456609/ramanbhai-somabhai-kharadi-appellant-hash-state-of-gujarat-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Bhadaran Police Writer Constable vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1999', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2005-09-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1999', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153732/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/456609/ramanbhai-somabhai-kharadi-appellant-hash-state-of-gujarat-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC retained criminal conviction of on-duty writer constable in reduced form (304A + 285) for negligent act causing 3 civilian deaths.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2005-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0017)

## Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Gujarat (CW-2006-0009)

**Record:** CW-2006-0009 (compiler id CWC-0140); case GUJARA-011
**Title:** Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: J. R. Vora
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal (Special Case No. 28 of 1986, Special Judge, Ahmedabad) / 2007 CriLJ 728
**Judgment:** 2006-09-01 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1985-10-19 (1985)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat; city town: Ahmedabad; police station or unit: Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d); PC Act 1947 s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.03 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Gujarat High Court maintained the corruption conviction of PSI of Odhav police station, caught in an ACB decoy trap on the night of 18/19 October 1985 extorting truck drivers on highways around Ahmedabad city. The Court rejected defences of false trap, panch contradictions and defective sanction, holding the Rs 20 bribe-taking proved by ultraviolet-lamp anthracene marks. While maintaining conviction under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d)/5(2) of the 1947 PC Act, it cut the sentence from one year's RI to 10 days' RI given the petty amount and two decades' lapse, retaining the Rs 100 fine with surrender by 1 November 2006. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> While maintaining the conviction awarded by the Trial Court to the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) to read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1947, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 days instead of rigorous imprisonment of one year as awarded by the Trial Court.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1091097/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2007 CriLJ 728', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2006-09-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2007 CriLJ 728', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1091097/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified: decoy-trap bribery conviction maintained; sentence cut 1 yr to 10 days RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0009)

## B. N. vs State of Gujarat & 4 Ors. (CW-2006-0013)

**Record:** CW-2006-0013 (compiler id CWC-0153); case GUJARA-006
**Title:** B. N. vs State of Gujarat & 4 Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: D. H. Waghela
**Case number / citation:** Not stated
**Judgment:** 2006-12-18 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-06-30 (1997)
**Place:** Amreli, Gujarat (district at time: Bhavnagar); city town: Savarkundla; police station or unit: Savarkundla police station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 176; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Savarkundla police station; Police Sub-Inspector, Savarkundla police station; Police Constable, Savarkundla police station; Police Constable, Savarkundla police station; Police Constable, Savarkundla police station; Police Constable, Savarkundla police station (6 in record)
**Victims:** Savarkundla girl, age 13; Savarkundla woman, age 75 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gujarat High Court held there was no doubt about violation of the human rights of a woman and her 13-year-old daughter, a 13-year-old girl, by Savarkundla police on the night of 29/30 June 1997. The Court found officers came drunk to the widow house at about 1 a.m. looking for her absconding son, dragged the girl to Mahakali Chowk and beat her with sticks, then took her to the police station where she was again beaten, after which she immolated herself and died the same afternoon. A Section 176 CrPC inquiry by the SDM held the police beating proved though abduction and rape were not proved. The Court directed Rs 1,50,000 interim compensation under Article 226, recoverable from officers found responsible, while a separate criminal case against six officials remained pending.

> In the facts of the present case, there is no manner of doubt about violation of human rights of the deceased and the petitioner insofar as serious injuries were inflicted upon the deceased and justice was effectively denied to the petitioner.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8766/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** B. N. vs State of Gujarat & 4 Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-12-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Gujarat High Court judgment 2006-12-18', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8766/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC judgment verified; human-rights violation established, Rs 1.5 lakh interim compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 13, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a 13-year-old girl'}; {'age': 75, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0013)

## Magodi Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat (CW-2007-0021)

**Record:** CW-2007-0021 (compiler id CWC-1207); case GAP3-48-004
**Title:** Magodi Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: C.K. Buch
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 1992 (Special Case No. 5 of 1987, Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural))
**Judgment:** 2007-03-29 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1985-12-02 (1985)
**Place:** Gandhinagar, Gujarat; city town: Magodi; police station or unit: Police station serving village Magodi, Taluka Gandhinagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d); PC Act 1947 s.5(2); IPC 151
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Dabhoda Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Magodi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.08 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Gujarat High Court (C.K. Buch, J.) on 29 March 2007 partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 1992, confirming the corruption conviction of Police Constable by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) (1 September 1992). The court found no perversity in the finding that, after a field-quarrel complaint on 1 December 1985, he demanded Rs. 1,000 from villager a Magodi man to avoid arresting his brothers and accepted Rs. 600 at the panchayat office/tea-stall on 2 December 1985, recovered in an ACB trap. Since the 1947 Act prescribed no minimum sentence and the constable faced dismissal and years of agony, it reduced the substantive sentence from six months to one month rigorous imprisonment, confirming the Rs. 700 fine. It directed him to surrender within six weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For short, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the finding of conviction recorded by the ld. Trial Judge and it is rightly submitted by ld. APP Mr. Pandit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed as the same is devoid of any merits.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/436040/natwarlal-mohanlal-zala-appellant-hash-state-of-gujarat-respondent/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1433203/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** Magodi Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 1992 (Special Case No. 5 of 1987, Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural))', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2007-03-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 1992 (Special Case No. 5 of 1987, Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural))', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/436040/natwarlal-mohanlal-zala-appellant-hash-state-of-gujarat-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1433203/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** PC Act 1947 bribery conviction upheld; sentence cut 6 months to 1 month RI, fine confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0021)

## Petlad Police Senior Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Gujarat (CW-2007-0003)

**Record:** CW-2007-0003 (compiler id CWC-0141); case GUJARA-012
**Title:** Petlad Police Senior Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Anil R. Dave; K.S. Jhaveri
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal against Sessions Case No. 172 of 1991
**Judgment:** 2007-04-04 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-02-06 (1988)
**Place:** Anand, Gujarat (district at time: Kheda); city town: Petlad; police station or unit: Petlad Rural Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 331
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Police Sub-Inspector, Petlad Rural Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Petlad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 10 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court confirmed the conviction of Senior PSI of Petlad Rural police station for the custodial death of Bhupendrabhai Patel, arrested on 04.02.1988, handed to the PSI on 24-hour remand on 05.02.1988 and found dead with severe injuries at 2:30 a.m. on 06.02.1988. The Court held the deceased was beaten to death in the sole custody of the appellant, whose burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act went unrebutted, and rejected the parity plea based on the co-accused's acquittal. The appeal was dismissed, the 10-year RI sentences under Sections 304 Part II and 331 IPC confirmed, bail cancelled and the appellant given 5 weeks to surrender.

> There is no evidence inconsistent with the guilt of the appellant and, therefore, in our opinion, the circumstantial evidence is sufficient in this case so as to confirm the conviction.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161601/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 52
**display title redacted:** Petlad Police Senior Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal against Sessions Case No. 172 of 1991', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2007-04-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal against Sessions Case No. 172 of 1991', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161601/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed appeal of Senior PSI and confirmed 10y RI each under ss.304-II and 331 for custodial death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0003)

## Premilaben R. Jaishwal and Ors. vs \[name withheld\] and Ors. (CW-2007-0007)

**Record:** CW-2007-0007 (compiler id CWC-0145); case GUJARA-016
**Title:** Premilaben R. Jaishwal and Ors. vs \[name withheld\] and Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: D. H. Waghela
**Case number / citation:** 2007 CriLJ 4165
**Judgment:** 2007-05-03 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-09-17 (1994)
**Place:** Vadodara, Gujarat; city town: Vadodara; police station or unit: Makarpura Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 151; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Makarpura Police Station; Police Sub-Inspector, Makarpura Police Station; Police Sub-Inspector, Makarpura Police Station (3 in record)
**Victims:** Vadodara man, age 42 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.6 lakh (Rs 1,60,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gujarat High Court held it established that a Vadodara man, 42, died following illegal detention and ill-treatment at Makarpura police station, Vadodara. The Court found he was picked up on 16 September 1994 without any complaint against him, detained under Section 151 CrPC in a small room with many others, beaten, and denied medicines, water and medical aid despite his known heart ailment, dying on 17 September 1994. It noted a Section 176 magisterial inquiry substantiating beating and negligence was buried while a departmental inquiry exonerated all. Holding the Article 21 violation established, the Court directed Rs 40,000 interim compensation to each of the four petitioners plus Rs 10,000 costs, and ordered the widow complaint to be registered as an FIR for independent investigation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Telltale signs of physical injuries on the body of the deceased, some of which were not noticed even in the inquest panchnama, and the medical opinion that they were ante mortem and inflicted within 72 hours of the death, have clearly established that the deceased was ill-treated in the police custody in violation of law without any rhyme or reason.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1274571/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9.1
**display title redacted:** Premilaben R. Jaishwal and Ors. vs \[name withheld\] and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-05-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 160,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2007 CriLJ 4165', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1274571/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC judgment verified; custodial death with illegal detention established, interim compensation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0007)

## Ahmedabad Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat (CW-2007-0024)

**Record:** CW-2007-0024 (compiler id CWC-1210); case GAP3-48-007
**Title:** Ahmedabad Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: C.K. Buch
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1990 / LAWS(GJH)-2007-5-174
**Judgment:** 2007-05-11 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1986-12-08 (1986)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat; city town: Ahmedabad; police station or unit: Naroda Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d) r/w s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad City; Head Constable, Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad City (2 in record)
**Victims:** Ahmedabad resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.25 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. Constable and Head Constable of Naroda Police Station visited timber trader \[name withheld\]'s premises in December 1986 after a sales-tax complaint, a bailable matter, and agreed to accept Rs.3,000 for not seeking remand after arrest. The ACB trap recovered part-payment of Rs.800 plus blank signed papers from the head constable's portfolio. The Special Judge convicted both officers in 1989. The Gujarat High Court rejected the mistaken-identity defence, confirmed the conviction, but reduced the two-year sentences to three months' RI given the age of the case; no formal sentence order was passed for the second appellant, who died during the appeal.

> The judgment and order of conviction dated 20.12.1989 passed by the Special Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Special (ACB) Case No.48 of 1988, is hereby confirmed and the judgment and order of sentence dated 20.12.1989, passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Special (ACB) Case No.48 of 1988, is hereby reduced and modified to the extent that instead of 2 years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo RI for 9 months for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo sentence of 2 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo RI for 9 months for the offence punishable under Section 5(1)(d) r/w. Sec.5(2) of the Act, both the appellants now shall undergo RI for 3 months for both the offences and in default punishment for each of these offences imposed i.e for a period of 9 months is reduced to 1½ months.

**Sources (2):** [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/india.highcourt.judgement.gjhc240136801990/GJHC240136801990.pdf); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=207002815100&Title=NATHUBHAI-MOTIBHAI-PATEL-Vs.-STATE-OF-GUJARAT)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 56
**display title redacted:** Ahmedabad Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'LAWS(GJH)-2007-5-174', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2007-05-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'LAWS(GJH)-2007-5-174', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://archive.org/download/india.highcourt.judgement.gjhc240136801990/GJHC240136801990.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=207002815100&Title=NATHUBHAI-MOTIBHAI-PATEL-Vs.-STATE-OF-GUJARAT', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Conviction of two Naroda PS officers for bribery confirmed, sentence cut to 3 months RI; judgment PDF verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0024)

## Kadi Police Police Head Constable vs State of Gujarat (CW-2007-0008)

**Record:** CW-2007-0008 (compiler id CWC-0133); case GUJARA-004
**Title:** Kadi Police Police Head Constable vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: C.K. Buch
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal against Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 1986 / 2007 CriLJ 3387; (2008) 1 GLR 551
**Judgment:** 2007-06-13 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1984-10-13 (1984)
**Place:** Mehsana, Gujarat; city town: Kadi; police station or unit: Kadi Police Station, Mehsana; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Kadi Police Station, Mehsana (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kadi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Gujarat High Court confirmed the bribe-trap conviction of Police Head Constable, Jamadar (Investigation) of Kadi police station, who demanded Rs 500 from advocate Jashvantkumar Patel for a favourable report in a Section 202 CrPC court inquiry and was caught accepting the balance Rs 300 in an ACB trap on 13.10.1984 with marked notes recovered from his pocket. The Court held demand and wilful acceptance proved by the complainant, the independent panch and the panchnama, and rejected the defence that the notes were forcibly planted. The appeal, continued by the appellant's widow after his death, was dismissed and the sentences of 1 year RI under Section 161 IPC and 3 years RI under Section 5(2) of the 1947 PC Act were confirmed.

> For short, there is no merits in the present appeal and hence the same requires to be dismissed. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1106743/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Kadi Police Police Head Constable vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2007 CriLJ 3387; (2008) 1 GLR 551', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2007-06-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2007 CriLJ 3387; (2008) 1 GLR 551', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1106743/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed appeal of deceased head constable (widow continued) and confirmed ss.161/5(2) bribe-trap conviction.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0008)

## Bhavnagar Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat (CW-2007-0028)

**Record:** CW-2007-0028 (compiler id CWC-1208); case GAP3-48-005
**Title:** Bhavnagar Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: M.D. Shah
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 1993 / 2008 Cri LJ 505, (2008) 2 GLR 1075
**Judgment:** 2007-08-24 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-12-12 (1990)
**Place:** Bhavnagar, Gujarat; police station or unit: Khuntvada Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Khuntvada Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bhavnagar resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. PSI of Khuntvada Police Station stopped luxury bus GTS-9919 carrying a marriage party at Aasarana Chokadi on 12 December 1990, seized its permit papers and demanded Rs.250 (later Rs.225) as 'entry fee'. The bus owner refused to pay and approached the ACB, Bhavnagar, whose trap caught the PSI accepting the marked amount. The Special Judge, Bhavnagar convicted him in 1993 while acquitting three co-accused. The Gujarat High Court held the prosecution evidence acceptable and reliable, rejected the defence of a false trap, and confirmed the conviction and sentence while cancelling bail and ordering surrender. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. This appeal is accordingly dismissed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded in Special Case No. 9 of 1991 dated 5-11-1993 by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar are hereby confirmed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1346203/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54626/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 18
**display title redacted:** Bhavnagar Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2008 Cri LJ 505, (2008) 2 GLR 1075', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2007-08-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2008 Cri LJ 505, (2008) 2 GLR 1075', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1346203/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54626/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed PSI's appeal and confirmed bribery conviction and sentence; judgment verified on Indian Kanoon.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0028)

## State Reserve Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (CW-2007-0030)

**Record:** CW-2007-0030 (compiler id CWC-1209); case GAP3-48-006
**Title:** State Reserve Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: S.R. Brahmbhatt
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 4393 of 1994 / (2008) 1 GLR 595
**Judgment:** 2007-10-05 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-04-15 (1989)
**Place:** Surat, Gujarat; police station or unit: State Reserve Police Force (Vav Camp); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.226; Bombay State Reserve Police Force Act 1951 s.14
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, State Reserve Police Force (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Remove 'leaving arms and ammunition unguarded' — that sentence occurs only inside a quoted Supreme Court paragraph about a different appellant (Railway Protection Special Force constable posted at Tarantaran, Punjab), not in the findings about \[name withheld\]. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus defiance by the petitioner can not be viewed lightly, nor the penalty could be termed to be disproportionate in absence of any mitigating circumstance.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/451538/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** State Reserve Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-10-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2008) 1 GLR 595', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/451538/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ against SRP constable's dismissal for defying Bihar marching orders dismissed; judgment verified on Indian Kanoon.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0030)

## Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Gujarat (with State of Gujarat vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.) (CW-2008-0001)

**Record:** CW-2008-0001 (compiler id CWC-0131); case SWCUSTOD-037; aliases: CWC-1459
**Title:** Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Gujarat (with State of Gujarat vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.)
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: A. M. Kapadia; R. H. Shukla
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 1998 with Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 1998 (Sessions Case No. 97 of 1992, Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City)
**Judgment:** 2008-01-31 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-01-11 (1989)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat; city town: Ahmedabad; police station or unit: Surveillance Squad, Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34; IPC 201; IPC 193
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Surveillance Squad, Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ahmedabad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Gujarat High Court held that theft suspect \[name withheld\], taken on seven days' police remand on 10 January 1989, died a homicidal custodial death with 34 ante-mortem lathi injuries while in the custody of PSI of the Naranpura Surveillance Squad. The Court rejected \[name withheld\]'s defence that the deceased fell on iron fencing while escaping, finding the death occurred in his exclusive custody. It altered his murder conviction to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs 5,000 fine, while confirming the convictions for evidence-tampering under Sections 201 and 193 IPC. The Court dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused policemen for want of proof of their presence.

> it is duly established that A-1 has caused death of A-1 which is a custodial death and, therefore, no intention can be attributed to him however he had a knowledge and, therefore, the conviction recorded against A-1 from Sections 302/34 IPC deserves to be altered to Sections 304 Part II/34 IPC

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19684573/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54915645/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Gujarat (with State of Gujarat vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 1998 with Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 1998 (Sessions Case No. 97 of 1992, Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2008-01-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 1998 with Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 1998 (Sessions Case No. 97 of 1992, Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19684573/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54915645/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on primary source: PSI custodial-death conviction altered Sec 302 to Sec 304-II/34, 3 yrs RI; State appeal dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0001)

## State Reserve Police Armed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (CW-2008-0016)

**Record:** CW-2008-0016 (compiler id CWC-1206); case GAP3-48-003
**Title:** State Reserve Police Armed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Anant S. Dave
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application (challenging dismissal order dated 08.04.1993; appeal 27.07.1993; revision 11.01.1994)
**Judgment:** 2008-02-08 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-09-14 (1990)
**Place:** Vadodara, Gujarat; city town: Vadodara; police station or unit: Wadi Police Station area, Vadodara (riot-duty point near Ranavav Masjid); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.226; Constitution Art.14
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Police Constable, State Reserve Police Force, Cadre No. 10, Ukai (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Gujarat High Court (Anant S. Dave, J.) on 8 February 2008 rejected the Article 226 petition of Armed Police Constable (SRPF Cadre 10, Ukai) and upheld his dismissal dated 8 April 1993. A departmental enquiry with three witnesses had proved that on 14 September 1990, during communally surcharged conditions in Vadodara, he left a sensitive riot-duty point near Ranavav Masjid in the Wadi Police Station area from 20:15 hrs without his superior's permission. The court held the enquiry followed the rules, noted nine prior unauthorised absences between 1984 and 1990, and held dismissal proportionate since even brief dereliction at such a point could trigger an uncontrollable law-and-order situation. No civilian victim is involved; this is a duty-desertion dismissal upheld on judicial review. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On the contrary, the misconduct on the part of the petitioner of remaining absent from duty at a highly sensitive point situated in communally surcharged area of Vadodara City is grave in nature and cannot be pardoned.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/837172/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 5
**display title redacted:** State Reserve Police Armed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-02-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Special Civil Application (challenging dismissal order dated 08.04.1993; appeal 27.07.1993; revision 11.01.1994)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/837172/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SRPF dismissal for deserting riot-duty point upheld; duty desertion, no civilian victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0016)

## Gujarat Police Police Sub-Inspector v. State of Gujarat (CW-2008-0006)

**Record:** CW-2008-0006 (compiler id CWC-0445); case SWBRIBER-019
**Title:** Gujarat Police Police Sub-Inspector v. State of Gujarat
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Arijit Pasayat; J.M. Panchal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2008 / 2008 (11) SCC 163
**Judgment:** 2008-02-29 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-12-12 (1990)
**Place:** Bhavnagar, Gujarat; city town: Aasarana Chokdi, Mahuva; police station or unit: Aasarana Chokdi; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Gujarat Police (on duty at Aasarana Chokdi) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Aasarana Chokdi, Mahuva man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court maintained the conviction of Police Sub-Inspector, who had stopped a marriage-party luxury bus at Aasarana Chokdi, retained its permit and papers, and demanded Rs.250 as entry fee from the travels mehtaji. The Court found sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance of the bribe. Given the prolonged pendency and over six months already spent in custody, it reduced the one year's rigorous imprisonment to the period undergone while maintaining the conviction and fine. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We feel interest of justice would be best served if the sentence is reduced to the period undergone, while maintaining the conviction.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54626/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Gujarat Police Police Sub-Inspector v. State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2008 (11) SCC 163', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2008-02-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2008 (11) SCC 163', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54626/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment text verified; PSI entry-fee bribery conviction maintained, sentence cut to undergone.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0006)

## Ahmedabad Police Constable (traffic police) vs State of Gujarat (CW-2008-0024)

**Record:** CW-2008-0024 (compiler id CWC-1205); case GAP3-48-002
**Title:** Ahmedabad Police Constable (traffic police) vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: M.D. Shah
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 1993 (Special Case No. 5 of 1991, Special Judge, City Sessions Court 2nd Court, Ahmedabad city)
**Judgment:** 2008-07-23 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-12-27 (1989)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat; city town: Ahmedabad; police station or unit: Traffic Court (Court No. 13), Gheekanta, Ahmedabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(i); PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(ii)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (traffic police), Traffic Court (Court No. 13), Gheekanta, Ahmedabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ahmedabad resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Gujarat High Court (M.D. Shah, J.) on 23 July 2008 partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 1993, upholding the corruption conviction of traffic policeman by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad city (26 July 1993). The court held proved beyond doubt that, while attached to Traffic Court (Court No. 13) Gheekanta, he demanded money at Rs. 15 per complaint from auto-rickshaw driverW.-1 to dispose of 15-16 pending traffic complaints and accepted Rs. 150 in an ACB trap on 27 December 1989. It rejected the defence that he took the money only to secure the driver's court presence, holding police officials were not authorised to collect fine amounts directly. Given ~19 years had passed, it reduced the three-year sentences to one year rigorous imprisonment on all counts, concurrent. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the above discussion and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the amount of Rs.150/- received by the appellant from P.W.-1 on 27.12.1989 was an illegal gratification and that the ingredients of bribe i.e. demand, offer and acceptance has been successfully proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1905268/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 13.0
**display title redacted:** Ahmedabad Police Constable (traffic police) vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 1993 (Special Case No. 5 of 1991, Special Judge, City Sessions Court 2nd Court, Ahmedabad city)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2008-07-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 1993 (Special Case No. 5 of 1991, Special Judge, City Sessions Court 2nd Court, Ahmedabad city)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1905268/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** PC Act bribery conviction of traffic policeman upheld; sentence cut 3 years to 1 year for delay.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0024)

## Ahmedabad Police Constable and others vs State of Gujarat (CW-2008-0027)

**Record:** CW-2008-0027 (compiler id CWC-1204); case GAP3-48-001
**Title:** Ahmedabad Police Constable and others vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: M.D. Shah
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 775 of 1993 (Special Case No. 20 of 1990, Special Judge, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad)
**Judgment:** 2008-09-30 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-12-01 (1989)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat; city town: Ahmedabad; police station or unit: Naroda Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(i); PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(ii); IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad city; Constable, Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad city (2 in record)
**Victims:** Ahmedabad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Gujarat High Court (M.D. Shah, J.) on 30 September 2008 partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 775 of 1993, upholding the corruption conviction of two Naroda Police Station constables by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad (29 June 1993). The court held proved beyond doubt that they demanded and accepted Rs. 1,000 illegal gratification from scrap trader \[name withheld\] on 1-2 December 1989 for not registering a case over missing purchase bills, relying on the panch witness and ACB officer evidence from the trap with marked notes. It rejected the defence that the notes were thrust on them during a summons visit. Given ~20 years had passed, it reduced appellant No. 1 \[name withheld\]'s sentence from three years to one year rigorous imprisonment on all counts; appellant No. 2 \[name withheld\] died during appeal so no sentence order was passed for him.

> In view of the above discussion and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the oral and documentary evidence available on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the amount of Rs.1,000/- received by the accused persons from the complainant on 01.12.1989 was illegal gratification and that the ingredients of bribe i.e. demand, offer and acceptance have been successfully proved by the prosecution beyond doubt.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/653760/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 10.0
**display title redacted:** Ahmedabad Police Constable and others vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 775 of 1993 (Special Case No. 20 of 1990, Special Judge, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2008-09-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 775 of 1993 (Special Case No. 20 of 1990, Special Judge, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/653760/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** PC Act bribery conviction of two constables upheld; sentence cut 3 years to 1 year for delay.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0027)

## \[name withheld\] vs District Superintendent of Police & Anr. (CW-2009-0026)

**Record:** CW-2009-0026 (compiler id CWC-1215); case GAP3-49-005
**Title:** \[name withheld\] vs District Superintendent of Police & Anr.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: K.S. Radhakrishnan; Akil Kureshi
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 2829 of 1988 / (2009) 3 GLR 2499 : (2010) 1 SLR 194
**Judgment:** 2009-05-14 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Vadodara, Gujarat; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Police Constable (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. Armed Constable, married with five children, was charged in 1984 with marrying and cohabiting with two other women, one of village Rajpura, Taluka Padra, while his first marriage subsisted. The inquiry proved the charges on witness statements and he was removed in January 1988, with his appeal failing. On a reference over whether private conduct can be police misconduct, the Division Bench held such acts unbecoming of a government servant under the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, and dismissed the petition without reducing the penalty. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Such a conduct of a police official who has been employed in a disciplined force carrying out important functions of maintaining law and order and investigating crimes would certainly amount to acts unbecoming of a Government servant and therefore misconduct.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/444002/prabhatsinh-samatsinh-appellant-hash-dsp-and-another-respondent/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/707883/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] vs District Superintendent of Police & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-05-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2009) 3 GLR 2499 : (2010) 1 SLR 194', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/444002/prabhatsinh-samatsinh-appellant-hash-dsp-and-another-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/707883/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench upheld removal of armed constable for bigamy/cohabitation as misconduct under Conduct Rules.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0026)

## Ahmedabad Boy v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (CW-2009-0014)

**Record:** CW-2009-0014 (compiler id CWC-0722); case SWILLEGA-070
**Title:** Ahmedabad Boy v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Badar Durrez Ahmed; Ajit Bharihoke
**Case number / citation:** WP(CRL) 758/2008
**Judgment:** 2009-07-03 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-05-25 (2008)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat; city town: Ahmedabad; police station or unit: Special Operations Group, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City, Gujarat Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, SOG, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City; Constable, SOG, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City (3 constables) (4 in record)
**Victims:** Ahmedabad boy, age 13 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.7 lakh (Rs 2,70,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court (Justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Ajit Bharihoke) awarded Rs 2,70,000 from the State of Gujarat to Tasleema and her 13-year-old son, a 13-year-old boy. The Court found that on 25 May 2008 SI (SOG, Ahmedabad Crime Branch) with three constables took the boy from Seelampur, Delhi to an Ahmedabad lockup without reason or authority of law while ostensibly searching for an accused in FIR No.840/06, without seeking Delhi Police help or disclosing the removal. Inflation-correcting the Rs 50,000 awarded in Bhim Singh (1985) via the CPI-IW, the Court granted strict-liability public-law compensation within two weeks, rejecting Gujarat's plea for a s.340 CrPC complaint against the mother. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The violation of Article 21 is patent and incontrovertible and it is of such a magnitude that it shocks the conscience of this Court.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172864698/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/378574/pdf/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 56
**display title redacted:** Ahmedabad Boy v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-07-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 270,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'WP(CRL) 758/2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172864698/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/378574/pdf/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon + mirror; Rs 2.7L from Gujarat for minor's interstate removal matches.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 13, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 13-year-old boy'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2009-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0014)

## Hansot Man vs State of Gujarat & Ors. (CW-2010-0001)

**Record:** CW-2010-0001 (compiler id CWC-0151); case GUJARA-004
**Title:** Hansot Man vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: H. N. Devani
**Case number / citation:** Special Criminal Application No. 428 of 1998
**Judgment:** 2010-01-12 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-05-07 (1995)
**Place:** Bharuch, Gujarat; city town: Hansot; police station or unit: Hansot Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art 21; Constitution of India Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Hansot man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gujarat High Court held Hansot police grossly negligent in the lock-up death of Rameshbhai Parmar, arrested on 6 May 1995 in largely non-cognizable offences and kept overnight instead of being produced before the nearby magistrate. The Court found that after he complained of stomach pain around 1:30 a.m., he was left without medical help for over an hour while police slowly arranged a vehicle, dying at 2:47 a.m., with two unexplained ante-mortem bruises. Though the death was attributed to GI perforation rather than custodial violence, the Court held the State liable for infringing the arrestee's Article 21 rights. It partly allowed the petition, directing Rs 1 lakh compensation to the widow under Article 226. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> However, as is evident from the facts noted hereinabove, there is gross negligence on the part of the police authorities in providing medical treatment to the arrestee. In the first place, the husband of the petitioner was arrested in connection with the offences which prima facie appear to be non-cognizable offences. Thereafter, he was confined in the lockup with a view to teach him a lesson and not produced before the Judicial Magistrate immediately after his arrest despite the Court being available.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1288965/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** Hansot Man vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-01-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Special Criminal Application No. 428 of 1998', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1288965/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified: gross negligence in custodial medical care; Rs 1 lakh compensation to widow.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0001)

## \[name withheld\] vs District Superintendent of Police & 3 (CW-2010-0023)

**Record:** CW-2010-0023 (compiler id CWC-1213); case GAP3-49-003
**Title:** \[name withheld\] vs District Superintendent of Police & 3
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: K.S. Jhaveri
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 10751 of 1994
**Judgment:** 2010-03-05 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Gujarat; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Unarmed Police Constable (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. Unarmed Constable, in service since 1978, was acquitted (benefit of doubt) in a 1987 murder trial, then chargesheeted (16 May 1988) for absence from duty (proved) and extra-marital relations (partly proved). The DSP imposed stoppage of one increment (26 Dec 1990); the DIG enhanced it to dismissal from service (28 Aug 1991), confirmed by the IG (9 Jun 1993) and Home Department (13 Jan 1994). Later proceedings: on 18 July 2013, the Gujarat High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand. The Single Judge (5 Mar 2010) dismissed his petition; on appeal the Division Bench set aside the dismissal and restored the DSP's penalty ((2013) 3 GLR 2729).

> The respondent No.2 has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at a conclusion. Such a serious misconduct if is taken lightly it may adversely affect the moral of the police force and may also affect the moral character of the other police officers.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/707883/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] vs District Superintendent of Police & 3
**final outcome url:** https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/436273/jasubhai-s-parmar-vs-dist-superintendent-of-police-and-oth/
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-03-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Special Civil Application No. 10751 of 1994', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2013-07-18', 'action_type': 'Order set aside', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'Later proceedings: on 18 July 2013, the Gujarat High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand.', 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Conviction not standing', 'source': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/436273/jasubhai-s-parmar-vs-dist-superintendent-of-police-and-oth/', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Gujarat High Court', 'date': '2013-07-18', 'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/436273/jasubhai-s-parmar-vs-dist-superintendent-of-police-and-oth/', 'outcome': 'conviction_set_aside'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/707883/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** overturned
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal of constable for absence and extra-marital misconduct upheld despite earlier murder acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0023)

## Unarmed Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & 3 (CW-2010-0031)

**Record:** CW-2010-0031 (compiler id CWC-1212); case GAP3-49-002
**Title:** Unarmed Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & 3
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: A.L. Dave
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 8325 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2010-07-22 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-05-26 (1995)
**Place:** Kheda, Gujarat; city town: Nadiad; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Unarmed Police Constable (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Unarmed Constable was found drunk on a public road near Pathikashram, Nadiad, at about 2:30 am on 26 May 1995 and prosecuted under the Bombay Prohibition Act and Bombay Police Act. The criminal court acquitted him on benefit of doubt, but departmental proceedings held the misconduct proved and he was dismissed, with the appeal and revision both failing in 2006. After his death in 2007, his widow challenged the dismissal. The Gujarat High Court held that a criminal acquittal does not dislodge a departmental finding recorded on preponderance of probability, and dismissed the petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is now a settled proposition of law that acquittal in a criminal proceedings may not have consequential effect on departmental proceedings, since both the proceedings are decided on different principles of proof. In criminal proceedings, strict proof beyond reasonable doubt is expected; whereas in the departmental proceedings strict proof is not a parameter and the proceedings are decided on the principles of preponderance of probability and, therefore, acquittal of the deceased employee in criminal trial cannot be a ground to entertain this petition.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/676192/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Unarmed Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & 3
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-07-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Special Civil Application No. 8325 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/676192/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Widow's challenge to constable's dismissal for drunken misconduct failed; criminal acquittal held no bar.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0031)

## Armed Police Armed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & 3 (CW-2009-0036)

**Record:** CW-2009-0036 (compiler id CWC-1214); case GAP3-49-004
**Title:** Armed Police Armed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & 3
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: M.R. Shah
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 4599 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2010-08-11 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-09-27 (2003)
**Place:** Gujarat; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Police Constable (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. Armed Constable remained absent without sanctioned leave or intimation for 354 days from September 2003 to September 2004, after more than 25 earlier instances of absenteeism. A departmental inquiry with full opportunity proved the charge and he was dismissed in August 2005; his appeal was time-barred and his revisions failed. The Gujarat High Court held that dismissal of a habitual absentee in a disciplined force is neither harsh nor illegal, and dismissed the petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case to the present case when the petitioner had been in the post found guilty of unauthorised absentism for 25 times and in a subsequent departmental inquiry is once again found guilty of unauthorised absent for 354 days, his consequential dismissal from service is not required to be interfered with, as the same cannot be said to be harsh and/or illegal. On the contrary the authority is justified in dismissing the petitioner from service more particularly considering the fact that the petitioner was serving in the disciplined police force and such an indiscipline cannot be tolerated at least in the police department.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1625532/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Armed Police Armed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & 3
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['judgment_date'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-08-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Special Civil Application No. 4599 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1625532/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal of habitual-absentee armed constable (354 days absent) upheld as neither harsh nor illegal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0036)

## RPF personnel vs State of Gujarat (CW-2011-0010)

**Record:** CW-2011-0010 (compiler id CWC-0147); case GUJARA-018
**Title:** RPF personnel vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Z. K. Saiyed
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1998
**Judgment:** 2011-06-15 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-04-04 (1990)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat; city town: Ahmedabad; police station or unit: RPF Post, Ahmedabad; force: railway
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 331; IPC 302; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, RPF Post, Ahmedabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ahmedabad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 7 yrs; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal of RPF man Ajaysing Yadav and confirmed his Section 331 IPC conviction for custodial torture leading to the death of an Ahmedabad man The Court found an Ahmedabad man was picked up from his Girdharnagar house on 4 April 1990 for a cement-theft inquiry and beaten by RPF personnel at the railway line and RPF Post, Ahmedabad, sustaining 20 external and 7 internal injuries, dying on 5 April 1990. It discarded the defence story of a fall while fleeing and relied on the mother eyewitness identification, the station-diary entry in the appellant own hand, and medical evidence ruling out a fall. Treating RPF custody as police custody throughout, the Court confirmed 7 years RI plus Rs 10,000 fine payable in full to the mother, leaving the acquittal of accused 2 to 5 and on Section 302 undisturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It means that at the time when Prahlad was taken to the Hospital, he had already expired and it can be said that it was a custodial death. Injuries were caused to the deceased in between 1.30 P.M. on 4.4.1990 to 11.00 A.M. of the day when the death was committed in the custody only.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/681545/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 34
**display title redacted:** RPF personnel vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1998', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-06-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1998', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/681545/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC judgment verified; Sec 331 conviction confirmed, 7 years RI plus fine to mother. Subcategory corrected to custodial_death (deceased died in RPF custody).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0010)

## Langnaj Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat (CW-2011-0015)

**Record:** CW-2011-0015 (compiler id CWC-0139); case GUJARA-010
**Title:** Langnaj Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Z.K. Saiyed
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1107 of 1997
**Judgment:** 2011-08-25 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-06-18 (1991)
**Place:** Mehsana, Gujarat; city town: Langnaj; police station or unit: Langnaj Police Station, Mehsana; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)/13(2); PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Langnaj Police Station, Mehsana; Unarmed Police Constable, Langnaj Police Station, Mehsana (2 in record)
**Victims:** Langnaj man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Gujarat High Court confirmed the ACB trap convictions of Langnaj police station PSI and Constable, who demanded Rs 2,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] to spare his father arrest and holiday detention in a Section 498-A case and were trapped on 18.06.1991 accepting the balance, anthracene stains being found on the PSI's hand. The Court held demand and voluntary acceptance proved, rejected the false-implication defence, and observed that police officers indulging in corrupt practice by threatening custody were entitled to no benefit of doubt. The appeal was dismissed, the convictions and 2-year RI sentences confirmed, bail bonds cancelled and the appellants directed to surrender within four weeks.

> The presence of anthracene powder on the hand of the accused goes to show that he has voluntarily accepted the bribe.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/912351/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Langnaj Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1107 of 1997', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-08-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1107 of 1997', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/912351/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed appeal and confirmed ACB trap convictions of PSI and constable; bail cancelled, surrender in 4 weeks.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0015)

## Dwarka Police Police personnel (rank not stated) vs State of Gujarat (CW-2011-0020)

**Record:** CW-2011-0020 (compiler id CWC-0150); case GUJARA-003
**Title:** Dwarka Police Police personnel (rank not stated) vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: M. D. Shah
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1998 (Special Case No. 4 of 1996, Special Judge, Jamnagar)
**Judgment:** 2011-11-18 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-05-09 (1996)
**Place:** Devbhumi Dwarka, Gujarat (district at time: Jamnagar); city town: Dwarka; police station or unit: Dwarka Police Station area (Okha road duty); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel (rank not stated), Dwarka Police Station area (Okha road duty) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Dwarka man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Gujarat High Court confirmed the conviction of policeman, caught in an ACB trap on the Dwarka-Okha road on 9 May 1996 demanding and accepting a Rs 10 entry fee from lignite-truck drivers. The Court held the panch-witness evidence proved demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt despite the punter turning hostile, noting the raiding party sat in the truck cabin. It dismissed the appeal, confirming six months' SI under Section 7 and one year's SI under Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, with bail bonds cancelled and six weeks to surrender. Two co-accused \[name withheld\] constables stood acquitted by the trial court. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution that trap was arranged and the ACB Inspector and panchas were in the truck when present appellant-accused no.1 demanded bribe amount and when he accepted the said amount.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1696659/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Dwarka Police Police personnel (rank not stated) vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1998 (Special Case No. 4 of 1996, Special Judge, Jamnagar)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-11-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1998 (Special Case No. 4 of 1996, Special Judge, Jamnagar)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1696659/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified: policeman's entry-fee bribe conviction confirmed (1 yr SI); appeal dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0020)

## \[name withheld\] vs District Superintendent of Police & Ors. (CW-2011-0046)

**Record:** CW-2011-0046 (compiler id CWC-1211); case GAP3-49-001
**Title:** \[name withheld\] vs District Superintendent of Police & Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: V.M. Sahai; A.J. Desai
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal No. 1721 of 2011 in Special Civil Application No. 22358 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2011-12-12 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-03-26 (2002)
**Place:** Gujarat; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Police Constable (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. Armed Constable remained absent without leave from 26 March to 1 April 2002, immediately after the Godhra riots when police bandobast was in force, adding to repeated absences since September 2000 and prior fines. He filed no reply to the October 2002 charge-sheet, the inquiry proved the charges on evidence, and he was dismissed, which the appellate authority confirmed. The Single Judge upheld the dismissal, and the Division Bench agreed the inquiry was fair and absence during communal-riot duty was gross misconduct by a member of a disciplined force. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> At that time, the appellant remained absent without informing the higher authority, and in view of such conduct of the appellant we are of the view that the order passed by the Inquiry Officer dismissing the appellant from the service is a right decision, which has been rightly confirmed by the learned Single Judge.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107808448/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] vs District Superintendent of Police & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-12-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Letters Patent Appeal No. 1721 of 2011 in Special Civil Application No. 22358 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107808448/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench dismissed LPA, upholding dismissal of armed constable for absence during post-Godhra bandobast.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0046](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0046)

## Rajkot Youngster v. Secretary to the Government of Gujarat and Another (Rajkot lathi-charge case) (CW-2013-0004)

**Record:** CW-2013-0004 (compiler id CWC-0518); case SWDISPRO-011
**Title:** Rajkot Youngster v. Secretary to the Government of Gujarat and Another (Rajkot lathi-charge case)
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Bhaskar Bhattacharya; J. B. Pardiwala
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (PIL) No. 170 of 2012 (Suo Motu)
**Judgment:** 2013-03-22 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-06-25 (2012)
**Place:** Rajkot, Gujarat; city town: Rajkot; police station or unit: Rajkot City Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Rajkot youngster, age 9; Rajkot boy, age 14; Rajkot boy, age 11; Rajkot boy, age 16; Rajkot woman, age 38; Rajkot girl, age 16 (6 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

On a suo motu PIL based on photographs and a CD, the Gujarat High Court held Rajkot police guilty of an indiscriminate brutal lathi charge on innocent Dalit residents of Ambedkarnagar Colony, Thorala Ward, on 25 June 2012, a day after a Dalit leader murder. The Court found police beat targeted individuals including children and women, assaulted a surrendered person to teach a lesson, and attacked unconnected passers-by. Rejecting the mild-force defence, the Court awarded Rs 25,000 each as exemplary damages to six victims within four weeks, recoverable from erring officers salaries, and directed a Committee to fix penal liability with prosecution within eight weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> At the cost of repetition, we state that what is painful is the fact that even when a member of the unlawful assembly meekly surrendered before the Police, the Police with a view to teach a lesson to such person, led a brutal assault with lathi, which is not permissible in law.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155307395/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 37
**display title redacted:** Rajkot Youngster v. Secretary to the Government of Gujarat and Another (Rajkot lathi-charge case)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-03-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Writ Petition (PIL) No. 170 of 2012 (Suo Motu)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155307395/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Brutal lathi charge on Dalits held proved; Rs 25K each to 6 victims; penal-liability probe ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 9, 'gender': None, 'descriptor': 'a 9-year-old child'}; {'age': 14, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 14-year-old boy'}; {'age': 11, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 11-year-old boy'}; {'age': 16, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 16-year-old boy'}; {'age': 38, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}; {'age': 16, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a 16-year-old girl'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0004)

## Dhari Resident vs State of Gujarat through Secretary and Anr. (CW-2013-0035)

**Record:** CW-2013-0035 (compiler id CWC-0800); case GAP2-23-002
**Title:** Dhari Resident vs State of Gujarat through Secretary and Anr.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: S. G. Shah
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 595 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2013-10-07 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-12-16 (2007)
**Place:** Amreli, Gujarat; city town: Dhari; police station or unit: Dhari Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** PASA 1985 s.3(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** District Magistrate, Amreli; Police Sub-Inspector, Dhari Police Station, Amreli (4 in record)
**Victims:** Dhari resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The petitioner was detained under the Gujarat PASA Act by the District Magistrate, Amreli on 16-12-2007 on police-sponsored material and held for about 45 days. The High Court found the detention order illegal, passed on vague and arbitrary grounds with an ulterior motive to harass: the complainant denied the incident, signatory witnesses disowned complaints, and no statements were properly considered. Relying on Nilabati Behera and the Uphaar Tragedy case on compensation for Article 21 violations, the court awarded Rs.1,50,000 compensation payable by the State within eight weeks, recoverable in equal proportions from the erring officers' salaries. The petition was allowed to that extent and the Rule made absolute. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, I hold that respondents have misused their powers under the PASA for illegal detention and hence the petitioner is entitled to compensation.

**Sources (2):** [cjp.org.in](https://cjp.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/visamanbhai-SCA5952009_GJHC240085502009_308_07102013.pdf); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/439883/visamanbhai-d-dhola-vs-state-of-gujarat-and-another/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Dhari Resident vs State of Gujarat through Secretary and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-10-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Special Civil Application No. 595 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://cjp.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/visamanbhai-SCA5952009_GJHC240085502009_308_07102013.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/439883/visamanbhai-d-dhola-vs-state-of-gujarat-and-another/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held 45-day PASA detention illegal and actuated by ulterior motive; awarded Rs.1,50,000 compensation recoverable from erring officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0035)

## Gondal Police Head Constable (Grade-I) and others vs State of Gujarat & Ors. (CW-2014-0019)

**Record:** CW-2014-0019 (compiler id CWC-1216); case GAP3-50-001
**Title:** Gondal Police Head Constable (Grade-I) and others vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Akil Kureshi; Sonia Gokani
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1437/2010 (in SCA 4402/2010) and 1438/2010 (in SCA 4403/2010) / (2014) 02 GUJ CK 0051
**Judgment:** 2014-02-05 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-10-07 (1993)
**Place:** Rajkot, Gujarat; city town: Gondal; police station or unit: Gondal police station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 225A(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (Grade-I), Gondal police station; Head Constable, Gondal police station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

On 5 February 2014 the Gujarat High Court Division Bench dismissed appeals by two Gondal lady head constables and upheld their dismissal from service. The court found that a woman accused entrusted to their overnight custody on 6-7 October 1993 had escaped through their negligence, for which both stood finally convicted under section 225A(b) IPC (six months simple imprisonment plus fine). The court held the escape reflected gross negligence and consequential misconduct by police custodians, and that dismissal was neither shockingly nor grossly disproportionate. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In our opinion, the appellants simply cannot escape the liability of their gross negligence and consequential misconduct.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53798938/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/460387/jubedaben-ranabhai-juneja-appellant-hash-state-of-gujarat-and-3-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9 (mirror; IndianKanoon numbering unconfirmed — record says 10)
**display title redacted:** Gondal Police Head Constable (Grade-I) and others vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-02-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2014) 02 GUJ CK 0051', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53798938/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/460387/jubedaben-ranabhai-juneja-appellant-hash-state-of-gujarat-and-3-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC Division Bench dismissed LPAs; dismissal of two head constables for IPC 225A(b) negligent escape upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0019)

## State of Gujarat vs Gambhoi Police Writer to Police Sub-Inspector (CW-2014-0022)

**Record:** CW-2014-0022 (compiler id CWC-1217); case GAP3-50-002
**Title:** State of Gujarat vs Gambhoi Police Writer to Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Rajesh H. Shukla
**Case number / citation:** R/Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 1999 (State appeal u/s 378 CrPC against Special Case No. 2 of 1995) / (2014) 3 GLR 2313; 2015 CriLJ 1520
**Judgment:** 2014-03-10 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-11-11 (1994)
**Place:** Sabarkantha, Gujarat; city town: Gambhoi; police station or unit: Gambhoi Police Station / Raipur outpost; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Writer to Police Sub-Inspector, Gambhoi Police Station / Raipur outpost (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

On 10 March 2014 the Gujarat High Court allowed the State appeal against acquittal and convicted a Gambhoi police-station writer for taking a bribe to weaken a criminal case against the complainant party. The court held that the Special Judge had wrongly doubted demand, finding that the accused unexplained presence at Ambika Hotel, the anthracene-marked fingertips and pocket, and recovery of the tainted Rs.900 proved demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. It quashed the 1999 acquittal, convicted him under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and imposed one year rigorous imprisonment with fine on each count to run concurrently. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The impugned judgment and order recording acquittal of the Respondent Accused for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act is hereby quashed and set aside and the charges against the Respondent Accused are held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the respondent accused is convicted for the offence under Section 7 and also for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79545603/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/460278/state-of-gujarat-vs-kalusinh-shivsinh-rahevar/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25 (mirror; record says 26)
**display title redacted:** State of Gujarat vs Gambhoi Police Writer to Police Sub-Inspector
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-03-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2014) 3 GLR 2313; 2015 CriLJ 1520', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79545603/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/460278/state-of-gujarat-vs-kalusinh-shivsinh-rahevar/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC reversed acquittal and convicted police writer under PC Act ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2); 1 year RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2014-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0022)

## Gujarat Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & Ors. (CW-2016-0029)

**Record:** CW-2016-0029 (compiler id CWC-0801); case GAP2-23-003
**Title:** Gujarat Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: J. B. Pardiwala
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 25765 of 2007 with Civil Application No. 4140 of 2016
**Judgment:** 2016-06-07 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-09-08 (1994)
**Place:** Banaskantha, Gujarat; city town: Vav; police station or unit: Vav Treasury / Vav Police Station, Banaskantha; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 224; IPC 332; IPC 353; IPC 504
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Banaskantha, Gujarat Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Vav man; Vav man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Gujarat High Court (J.B. Pardiwala J., 7 June 2016) rejected the Article 226 writ of former Police Constable, confirming his removal from service. The court recorded that on 8 September 1994 he assaulted on-duty unarmed constable at the Vav Treasury, consumed liquor and misbehaved with the Treasury Officer, and escaped from custody. The court held that his acquittals in the related criminal cases, decided on proof beyond reasonable doubt, did not undo the departmental finding of serious misconduct proved on preponderance of probability. It declined to re-appreciate the domestic-inquiry evidence and found no interference warranted with the removal order as affirmed in appeal and revision.

> A Police Constable cannot take law in his own hands and indulge in any act which would tarnish the image of the department.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3623497/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Gujarat Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-06-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Special Civil Application No. 25765 of 2007 with Civil Application No. 4140 of 2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3623497/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ rejected; removal of constable for 1994 assault, intoxication and escape from custody upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0029)

## Morbi Man vs State of Gujarat and Another (CW-2016-0011)

**Record:** CW-2016-0011 (compiler id CWC-0680); case GAP9-001
**Title:** Morbi Man vs State of Gujarat and Another
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: K. S. Jhaveri
**Case number / citation:** R/Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 536 of 2010 with SCA No. 1140 of 2008
**Judgment:** 2016-08-22 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-02-22 (2006)
**Place:** Morbi, Gujarat (district at time: Rajkot); city town: Morbi; police station or unit: Morbi City Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Morbi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Morbi man was taken into custody by Morbi City police on the night of 18 February 2006 for an alleged Prohibition Act offence, kept in illegal detention, produced before court only on 20 February 2006, and died on 22 February 2006. The post-mortem revealed multiple ante-mortem injuries all over his body. The mother's private complaint led to Criminal Inquiry No.106/2006, but the accused officers' revision against rejection of the 'B' Summary was allowed in 2008. Recording the State's submission citing Nilabati Behera that suitable compensation may be awarded, the High Court directed the State to pay Rs.1.50 lakh lump-sum compensation to the mother within six months, clarifying the order was by direction of the Court and not to be treated as precedent. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> if an amount of Rs.1.50 Lacs is awarded as compensation to the petitioner, the same would meet the ends of justice.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69686327/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/death-police-custody-gujarat-hc-orders-state-pay-compensation-kin)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7 (record has null)
**display title redacted:** Morbi Man vs State of Gujarat and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-08-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'R/Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 536 of 2010 with SCA No. 1140 of 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69686327/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/death-police-custody-gujarat-hc-orders-state-pay-compensation-kin', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC directed Rs.1.5 lakh lump-sum compensation for custodial death with ante-mortem injuries.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2016-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0011)

## Surat Man vs State of Gujarat & Ors. (CW-2016-0036)

**Record:** CW-2016-0036 (compiler id CWC-0802); case GAP2-23-004
**Title:** Surat Man vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Harsha Devani; Biren Vaishnav
**Case number / citation:** R/Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No. 4937 of 2016
**Judgment:** 2016-12-23 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2016-06-06 (2016)
**Place:** Surat, Gujarat; city town: Surat; police station or unit: Lajpore Central Jail, Surat (detention ordered by Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City; Superintendent, Lajpore Central Jail, Surat; Jailor Grade-2, Lajpore Central Jail, Surat (3 in record)
**Victims:** Surat man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gujarat High Court Division Bench (Harsha Devani and Biren Vaishnav JJ., 23 December 2016) allowed the habeas corpus petition of Hamirbhai Gabu on behalf of detenue a Surat man The court recorded that the PASA detention order of 27 May 2016 was revoked by the State Government on 6 June 2016, yet the detenue was released from Lajpore Central Jail, Surat only on 12 July 2016 though required in no other case. The court held it established that he remained under illegal incarceration at the hands of the authorities and the State for more than a month, showing scant regard for personal liberty under Article 21. It directed the State to pay Rs 50,000 compensation to the detenue plus Rs 10,000 costs and made the rule absolute. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the detenue has remained under illegal incarceration/detention at the hands of the authorities and State for a period of more than a month is established

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4928132/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58ba44c32713e13a98901a24)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Surat Man vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-12-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'R/Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No. 4937 of 2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4928132/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58ba44c32713e13a98901a24', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Habeas corpus allowed; 37-day illegal detention after revocation established; Rs 50,000 compensation + Rs 10,000 costs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2016-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0036)

## Gujarat Police Deputy Superintendent of Police and others v. State (B. B. case: appeals of convicted police personnel and doctors) (CW-2017-0006)

**Record:** CW-2017-0006 (compiler id CWC-0340); case SWFALSEI-013
**Title:** Gujarat Police Deputy Superintendent of Police and others v. State (B. B. case: appeals of convicted police personnel and doctors)
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: S. A. Bobde; L. Nageswara Rao
**Case number / citation:** Appeals from Bombay High Court judgment dated 04-05-2017 (Crl.A. Nos. 1020-1023/2009 etc.)
**Judgment:** 2017-05-04 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-03-03 (2002)
**Place:** Dahod, Gujarat; city town: Limkheda; police station or unit: Limkheda Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 201; IPC 218
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Limkheda, Gujarat Police; Inspector, Limkheda Police Station; Police officer, Limkheda Police Station; Police Sub-Inspector, Limkheda Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Limkheda woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court on 10 July 2017 dismissed the appeals of four Gujarat policemen including IPS officer R.\[name withheld\] and two government doctors, upholding the Bombay High Court convictions under Sections 201 and 218 IPC for sabotaging the a woman gang-rape and murder probe. The Court observed they had been unreasonably acquitted by the trial court despite clear-cut evidence of mis-recording the FIR, burying bodies without proper post-mortem and filing false closure reports. The High Court had sentenced them to the period undergone with fines of Rs 5,000 and Rs 15,000. In 2019 the Court separately awarded a woman 50 lakh with a job and housing and ordered disciplinary action against the convicted policemen. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the above, we set aside acquittal of accused Nos.13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 under Sections 201 and 218 of IPC and we hold them guilty of the offences punishable under sections 201 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41203430/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-asks-2002-gujarat-riots-victim-bilkis-bano-to-approach-authorities-for-job-and-accommodation-165017); [sabrangindia.in](https://sabrangindia.in/article/supreme-court-asks-gujarat-government-take-action-against-cops-convicted-bilkis-bano-rape); [twfindia.in](https://www.twfindia.in/public/news/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-of-two-docs-four-cops-in-bilkis-bano-case/details)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 371
**display title redacted:** Gujarat Police Deputy Superintendent of Police and others v. State (B. B. case: appeals of convicted police personnel and doctors)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-05-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Appeals from Bombay High Court judgment dated 04-05-2017 (Crl.A. Nos. 1020-1023/2009 etc.)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41203430/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-asks-2002-gujarat-riots-victim-bilkis-bano-to-approach-authorities-for-job-and-accommodation-165017', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sabrangindia.in/article/supreme-court-asks-gujarat-government-take-action-against-cops-convicted-bilkis-bano-rape', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.twfindia.in/public/news/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-of-two-docs-four-cops-in-bilkis-bano-case/details', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC dismissed appeals of 4 policemen + 2 doctors; Bombay HC ss.201/218 convictions stand. Short order via reports.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2017-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0006)

## Randhikpur Police Police Sub-Inspector v. The State of Gujarat (B. case; CBI v. \[name withheld\] and Others) (CW-2017-0004)

**Record:** CW-2017-0004 (compiler id CWC-0496); case SWDERELI-003
**Title:** Randhikpur Police Police Sub-Inspector v. The State of Gujarat (B. case; CBI v. \[name withheld\] and Others)
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: V. K. Tahilramani; Mridula Bhatkar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 1020-1023 of 2009, 487 of 2010; CBI appeals against acquittal Nos. 194 of 2011, 271 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2017-05-04 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-03-03 (2002)
**Place:** Dahod, Gujarat; city town: Randhikpur; police station or unit: Limkheda Police Station, Dahod; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 201; IPC 218
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Limkheda Police Station, Dahod; Police Sub-Inspector, Limkheda / Fatehpura Police Station, Dahod; Police personnel, Limkheda Police Station, Dahod (in charge of police station); Circle Police Inspector, Limkheda, Dahod; Police personnel, Limkheda Sub-Division, Dahod (supervising officer) (5 in record)
**Victims:** Randhikpur woman (8 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 1.4 lakh (Rs 1,40,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

On the CBI appeal against acquittal in the a woman gang-rape and murder trial, the Bombay High Court set aside the acquittal of five policemen (A13, A14, A15, A16, A18) and two doctors and convicted them under Sections 201 and 218 IPC. The Court held they suppressed facts, botched the inquest and post-mortem, and filed a false A-summary closure report to screen the offenders. Each was sentenced to the period already undergone plus Rs 5,000 fine under Section 201 and Rs 15,000 fine under Section 218, with all fine amounts directed to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> All the acts of commission and omission of the police and the medical officers cannot be examined in isolation but they are well connected with each other in a chain of suppression of facts causing disappearance of the evidence with intent to screen the offenders and save them from punishment.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193835523/); [legalindia.com](https://www.legalindia.com/news/bilkis-case-bombay-hc-upholds-life-sentence-12-sets-aside-acquittal-seven); [mainstreamweekly.net](http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article8694.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 370
**display title redacted:** Randhikpur Police Police Sub-Inspector v. The State of Gujarat (B. case; CBI v. \[name withheld\] and Others)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-05-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 1020-1023 of 2009, 487 of 2010; CBI appeals against acquittal Nos. 194 of 2011, 271 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193835523/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.legalindia.com/news/bilkis-case-bombay-hc-upholds-life-sentence-12-sets-aside-acquittal-seven', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article8694.html', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC reversed acquittal; 5 policemen convicted under IPC 201/218 for screening offenders.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2017-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0004)

## Navsari District Police Armed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat (CW-2021-0012)

**Record:** CW-2021-0012 (compiler id CWC-1224); case GAP3-53-007
**Title:** Navsari District Police Armed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Umesh A. Trivedi
**Case number / citation:** R/Special Civil Application No. 11044 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2021-01-08 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-01-13 (1994)
**Place:** Navsari, Gujarat; police station or unit: Superintendent of Police, Navsari; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1971 r.26
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Police Constable, Navsari District Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. Armed Police Constable of Navsari was removed from service on 18 April 2001 for contracting a second marriage with Kanizaben on 13 January 1994 while his first spouse lived, without divorce or State permission, and for falsely denying the second marriage before the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 6 January 1998. The inquiry officer held both charges proved on witness and documentary evidence including the petitioner's own admission of the registered marriage. His appeal and revision failed, and he challenged the removal under Article 226. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and held removal not shockingly disproportionate, rejecting the petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the authorities, as aforesaid which requires no interference by this Court as even a punishment of removal has also not shockingly disproportionate

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143144216/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Navsari District Police Armed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-01-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'R/Special Civil Application No. 11044 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143144216/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on IK; removal of constable for bigamy and false statement upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2021-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0012)

## Halvad Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat (CW-2021-0013)

**Record:** CW-2021-0013 (compiler id CWC-1225); case GAP3-53-008
**Title:** Halvad Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Umesh A. Trivedi
**Case number / citation:** R/Special Civil Application No. 9430 of 2007 / AIRONLINE 2021 GUJ 796
**Judgment:** 2021-01-27 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-07-03 (2000)
**Place:** Surendranagar, Gujarat; city town: Halvad; police station or unit: Halvad Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Gujarat Police Act s.145(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Unarmed Police Constable, Halvad Police Station, Surendranagar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. Unarmed Police Constable B.\[name withheld\] of Halvad Police Station went on casual leave from 30 June to 2 July 2000 and never reported back on 3 July 2000, remaining absent despite arrest in October 2001 in a case under Section 145(2) of the Bombay (now Gujarat) Police Act. He was charge-sheeted for withdrawing from duty without written permission of the Superintendent of Police and dismissed on 21 October 2003, confirmed by the Range IG and the DGP. He contended sickness certificates explained part of the absence. The Court held the unauthorised absence stood proved and his conscious defiant attitude intolerable in a disciplined force, rejecting the petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The conduct of the petitioner appears to be of a conscious defiant attitude which cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like Police

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97921735/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14 (record says 13)
**display title redacted:** Halvad Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-01-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2021 GUJ 796', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97921735/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on IK (AIRONLINE 2021 GUJ 796); dismissal for desertion of duty upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2021-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0013)

## District Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat (CW-2021-0016)

**Record:** CW-2021-0016 (compiler id CWC-1221); case GAP3-53-004
**Title:** District Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Bhargav D. Karia
**Case number / citation:** R/Special Civil Application No. 17969 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2021-08-26 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-09-05 (2001)
**Place:** Rajkot, Gujarat; police station or unit: Rajkot (Rural) District Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Unarmed Police Constable, Rajkot (Rural) District Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

On 26 August 2021 the Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition of an Unarmed Police Constable and left his removal from service undisturbed. The court recorded that on 5 September 2001 the petitioner was found intoxicated in public at 11:30 pm, quarrelling and talking nonsense, that the inquiry officer held the charge proved in May 2002, and that the Superintendent of Police, Rajkot (Rural) removed him in September 2002, a penalty confirmed in departmental appeal and review. The court held prior record had played no part in the penalty and found the petition devoid of merits. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly, dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51970637/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** District Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-08-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'R/Special Civil Application No. 17969 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51970637/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC dismissed writ; removal of constable for on-duty intoxication upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2021-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0016)

## Gujarat Police Head Constable vs State of Gujarat (CW-2021-0017)

**Record:** CW-2021-0017 (compiler id CWC-1222); case GAP3-53-005
**Title:** Gujarat Police Head Constable vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Biren Vaishnav
**Case number / citation:** R/Special Civil Application No. 12543 of 2008
**Judgment:** 2021-08-31 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-01-01 (1999)
**Place:** Gujarat; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 376; IPC 323; IPC 504; IPC 506(2); IPC 451
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Gujarat Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Gujarat woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. replace 'the survivor' with 'a woman' / 'the complainant'. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Perusal of the impugned order of dismissal would indicate that it is a case where an employee, particularly from the police force, has engaged himself in the dastardly act of raping a lady.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126288968/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Gujarat Police Head Constable vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-08-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'R/Special Civil Application No. 12543 of 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126288968/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC dismissed writ; head constable dismissal for rape of a woman upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2021-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0017)

## Gujarat Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat (CW-2021-0018)

**Record:** CW-2021-0018 (compiler id CWC-1223); case GAP3-53-006
**Title:** Gujarat Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Biren Vaishnav
**Case number / citation:** R/Special Civil Application No. 9645 of 2008
**Judgment:** 2021-09-01 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-04-26 (2002)
**Place:** Gujarat; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Unarmed Police Constable, Gujarat Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Unarmed Police Constable remained absent from duty from 26 April 2002 to 5 December 2002 (224 days) and was dismissed on 10 May 2004 after an ex-parte departmental inquiry, a penalty confirmed in appeal and revision. He challenged the dismissal under Article 226, contending illness and violation of natural justice. The Court noted an earlier penalty reducing his pay was already in force and found no improvement in his behaviour despite past penalties. The Court held the penalty of dismissal proportionate to the misconduct and dismissed the petition, leaving the dismissal undisturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> this Court after undertaking all analysis of several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the penalty of dismissal is proportionate to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55991816/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Gujarat Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-09-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'R/Special Civil Application No. 9645 of 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55991816/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on IK; dismissal of police constable for 224-day absence upheld under Art 226.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2021-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0018)

## State Reserve Police Armed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat (CW-2022-0027)

**Record:** CW-2022-0027 (compiler id CWC-1220); case GAP3-53-003
**Title:** State Reserve Police Armed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: R.M. Chhaya; Niral R. Mehta
**Case number / citation:** R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1123 of 2021 in R/Special Civil Application No. 10335 of 2021
**Judgment:** 2022-01-06 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-02-01 (1983)
**Place:** Gandhinagar, Gujarat; city town: Gandhinagar; police station or unit: State Reserve Police Force, Group-12; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Police Constable, State Reserve Police Force, Group-12, Gandhinagar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

On 6 January 2022 the Gujarat High Court Division Bench dismissed the appeal of an Armed Police Constable (SRP Group-12, Gandhinagar) against his dismissal from service ordered on 28 April 1998. The court recorded that the appellant, appointed in February 1983, had been charge-sheeted for producing a false school leaving certificate and misrepresenting his date of birth, and that he approached the court only in June 2020 seeking parity with other dismissed constables. Agreeing with the Single Judge, the court held the appellant had accepted the dismissal for almost 23 years and could not question it in extraordinary writ jurisdiction after such inordinate delay, leaving the dismissal undisturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In addition to that, the appellant has already accepted the order of dismissal for almost 23 years and hence, the appellant cannot now be permitted to question the same in exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66817616/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** State Reserve Police Armed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-01-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1123 of 2021 in R/Special Civil Application No. 10335 of 2021', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66817616/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC Division Bench dismissed LPA on 23-year laches; 1998 dismissal for false appointment records left undisturbed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0027)

## Vadodara City Police Police Constable vs The Commissioner of Police & Ors. (CW-2022-0028)

**Record:** CW-2022-0028 (compiler id CWC-1219); case GAP3-53-002
**Title:** Vadodara City Police Police Constable vs The Commissioner of Police & Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: A.S. Supehia
**Case number / citation:** R/Special Civil Application No. 2532 of 2007
**Judgment:** 2022-03-14 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-01-01 (1990)
**Place:** Vadodara, Gujarat; city town: Vadodara; police station or unit: Vadodara City Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 379
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Vadodara City Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

On 14 March 2022 the Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition of a Vadodara City police constable and left his dismissal from service undisturbed. The court recorded that the petitioner, suspended in March 1990 and charge-sheeted in 1994 for stealing motorcycles with duplicate keys and reselling them with duplicate number plates, had been acquitted in the parallel criminal cases under section 379 IPC but found guilty in a detailed departmental inquiry, leading to dismissal in November 2003, confirmed in appeal and revision. The court held that an acquittal premised on similar facts cannot ipso facto dilute a punishment order and that judicial review cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate authority. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case, as noted hereinabove, the entire case of the petitioner is premised on acquittal which cannot ipso facto result in diluting the order of punishment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82731018/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Vadodara City Police Police Constable vs The Commissioner of Police & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-03-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'R/Special Civil Application No. 2532 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82731018/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC held criminal acquittal cannot dilute dismissal; motorcycle-theft dismissal upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0028)

## State Reserve Police Constable vs State of Gujarat (CW-2022-0029)

**Record:** CW-2022-0029 (compiler id CWC-1218); case GAP3-53-001
**Title:** State Reserve Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: R.M. Chhaya; Hemant M. Prachchhak
**Case number / citation:** R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1201 of 2018 in R/Special Civil Application No. 19421 of 2007
**Judgment:** 2022-04-26 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-12-07 (2005)
**Place:** Gujarat; police station or unit: State Reserve Police Force; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, State Reserve Police Force (1 in record)
**Victims:** Gujarat man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

On 26 April 2022 the Gujarat High Court Division Bench dismissed the appeal of a State Reserve Police Force constable and confirmed his dismissal from service. The court recorded that on 7 December 2005 the appellant had scuffled with a colleague, who sustained a head injury from the appellant rifle, and that a full departmental inquiry had held the charges proved, leading to dismissal on 15 September 2006, confirmed in appeal and revision. Agreeing with the Single Judge that three concurrent findings of fact, a record of repeated misconduct and subsequent FIRs supported the penalty, the court held dismissal commensurate with the guilt and called for no interference. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the case on hand also, the appellant, who was working in disciplinary force is expected to be properly disciplined. The Disciplinary Authority having come to the conclusion that the charges of assault against the superior co-worker is proved, the same can not be substituted by this Court and the evidence can not be re-appreciated in limited jurisdiction.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82701494/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** State Reserve Police Constable vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-04-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1201 of 2018 in R/Special Civil Application No. 19421 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82701494/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC Division Bench dismissed LPA; SRP constable dismissal for rifle assault on colleague upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0029)

## Bhesan Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat (CW-2023-0050)

**Record:** CW-2023-0050 (compiler id CWC-0803); case GAP2-24-001
**Title:** Bhesan Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Hasmukh D. Suthar
**Case number / citation:** R/Criminal Revision Application No. 166 of 2022
**Judgment:** 2023-08-28 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-02-14 (2004)
**Place:** Junagadh, Gujarat; city town: Bhesan; police station or unit: Bhesan Police Station, Junagadh; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 323; IPC 325
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Bhesan Police Station, Junagadh; Police personnel, Bhesan Police Station, Junagadh; Police personnel, Bhesan Police Station, Junagadh (3 in record)
**Victims:** Bhesan man; Bhesan man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. replace 'complainant \[name withheld\] and his uncle' with 'the complainant and his uncle'. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> But in the present case, it is true that the accused persons were on duty but the acts of the accused persons to tonsure head, blacken the face and made to touch the toes of the complainant and victim and to conduct their procession in public place are all execrable acts not connected with their official duty.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143368892/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64f4c34405580264ab46888d)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8.1
**display title redacted:** Bhesan Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'R/Criminal Revision Application No. 166 of 2022', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2023-08-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'R/Criminal Revision Application No. 166 of 2022', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143368892/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64f4c34405580264ab46888d', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Revision dismissed; 3 policemen's conviction for 2004 lock-up assault confirmed; surrender within 15 days.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0050](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0050)

## Undhela (Matar) Police Police Inspector and Ors. vs State of Gujarat and Ors. (CW-2023-0031)

**Record:** CW-2023-0031 (compiler id CWC-0134); case GUJARA-005
**Title:** Undhela (Matar) Police Police Inspector and Ors. vs State of Gujarat and Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: A. S. Supehia; Gita Gopi
**Case number / citation:** R/Misc. Civil Application (for Contempt) No. 1067 of 2022 / Neutral Citation C/MCA/1067/2022
**Judgment:** 2023-10-19 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-10-04 (2022)
**Place:** Kheda, Gujarat; city town: Undhela (Matar); police station or unit: Matar Police Station / SOG, Kheda; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** Contempt of Courts Act 1971
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Kheda (Matar / SOG); Sub-Inspector, Kheda; Armed Head Constable, Kheda; Constable, Kheda (4 in record)
**Victims:** Undhela man (5 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.04 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Gujarat High Court held four Kheda police personnel guilty of contempt for tying five detained men to a pole at Undhela village chowk on 4 October 2022 and publicly flogging them, in violation of the D. K. Basu guidelines. The Court found the men had been kept overnight at the SOG police station, beaten in public view in an act that was videographed and widely circulated, with arrest shown only that night. It rejected the unconditional apology and sentenced each contemner to 14 days' simple imprisonment with a Rs 2,000 fine. The sentence directions were stayed for three months to allow appeal.

> We have already discussed the inhuman acts committed by the respondents on the complainants by violating the law declared by the Supreme Court. Looking to the over all facts and the manner, in which the incident has occurred and in light of the service rendered by the respondents in the Police department, in our considered opinion, the interest of justice would be served if the respondents are ordered sentence of undergoing simple imprisonment of 14 days and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, further simple imprisonment of 3 days.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67983953/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/gujarat-high-court-finds-4-policemen-guilty-contempt-of-court-publicly-flogging-muslim-men)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 32
**display title redacted:** Undhela (Matar) Police Police Inspector and Ors. vs State of Gujarat and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-10-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Neutral Citation C/MCA/1067/2022', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-01-23', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 23 January 2024, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-kheda-flogging-high-court-contempt-sentence-stay-proceedings-247428', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2024-01-23', 'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-kheda-flogging-high-court-contempt-sentence-stay-proceedings-247428', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67983953/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/gujarat-high-court-finds-4-policemen-guilty-contempt-of-court-publicly-flogging-muslim-men', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC contempt conviction verified (14 days SI + Rs 2,000 fine each); HC stayed sentence 3 months; reported SC stay unverified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2023-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0031)

## Jamjodhpur Police Assistant Superintendent of Police (IPS) and others vs State of Gujarat (CW-2024-0001)

**Record:** CW-2024-0001 (compiler id CWC-0149); case GUJARA-002
**Title:** Jamjodhpur Police Assistant Superintendent of Police (IPS) and others vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Ashutosh Shastri; Sandeep N. Bhatt
**Case number / citation:** R/Criminal Appeal Nos. 1472, 1276, 1343 and 1492 of 2019 with R/Criminal Appeal No. 1920 of 2019 (State)
**Judgment:** 2024-01-09 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-10-30 (1990)
**Place:** Jamnagar, Gujarat; city town: Jamjodhpur; police station or unit: Jamjodhpur Police Station, Jamnagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 114; IPC 323; IPC 506(1)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Superintendent of Police (IPS), Jamnagar; Police Constable, Jamjodhpur; Police officer; Police Sub-Inspector, Dhrafa; Police personnel; Police personnel; Police Constable, Jamjodhpur (7 in record)
**Victims:** Jamjodhpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Gujarat High Court records the following account. consider replacing victim name with role noun per R43. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We are of the view that prosecution has proved case against respective accused / convicts and hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Trail Court.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/136686420/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/gujarat-high-court-dismisses-ex-ips-officer-sanjiv-bhatt-appeal-conviction-life-term-1990-custodial-death-case-246264)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Jamjodhpur Police Assistant Superintendent of Police (IPS) and others vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'R/Criminal Appeal Nos. 1472, 1276, 1343 and 1492 of 2019 with R/Criminal Appeal No. 1920 of 2019 (State)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-01-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'R/Criminal Appeal Nos. 1472, 1276, 1343 and 1492 of 2019 with R/Criminal Appeal No. 1920 of 2019 (State)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-04-29', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 29 April 2025, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-issues-notice-on-ex-ips-officer-sanjiv-bhatts-appeal-challenging-conviction-life-term-in-custodial-death-case-267748', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2025-04-29', 'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-issues-notice-on-ex-ips-officer-sanjiv-bhatts-appeal-challenging-conviction-life-term-in-custodial-death-case-267748', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/136686420/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/gujarat-high-court-dismisses-ex-ips-officer-sanjiv-bhatt-appeal-conviction-life-term-1990-custodial-death-case-246264', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed all convict appeals (life for Bhatt/Zala confirmed) and dismissed State appeal vs partial acquittals.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0001)

## Surat Man vs Kamal Dayani and Ors. (CW-2024-0015)

**Record:** CW-2024-0015 (compiler id CWC-0137); case GUJARA-008
**Title:** Surat Man vs Kamal Dayani and Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: B.R. Gavai
**Case number / citation:** Contempt Petition (C) Diary No. 1106 of 2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 14489 of 2023
**Judgment:** 2024-09-02 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2023-12-11 (2023)
**Place:** Surat, Gujarat; city town: Surat; police station or unit: Vesu Police Station, Surat; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** Contempt of Courts Act 1971
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Vesu Police Station, Surat (1 in record)
**Victims:** Surat man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** fine
**Sentence type:** fine (fine)

The Supreme Court held Police Inspector of Vesu police station, Surat, guilty of contempt for arresting Tusharbhai Shah on 11.12.2023 and obtaining his police-custody remand in defiance of the Court's subsisting interim anticipatory bail order dated 08.12.2023. By the guilt judgment dated 07.08.2024 the inspector and the remanding magistrate were both held guilty; the Court condemned the practice of seeking remand despite subsisting anticipatory bail. By the sentence order dated 02.09.2024 the magistrate's apology was accepted while the inspector was sentenced to a fine of Rs 25,000. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Insofar as Shri \[name withheld\], Police Inspector, Vesu Police Station, Surat (Contemnor-respondent No.4) is concerned, we sentence him to pay fine in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, to be deposited in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association to be used for the purpose of Library within a period of one month from today.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105450033/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-holds-police-inspector-judicial-magistrate-guilty-of-contempt-for-arrest-remand-of-accused-violating-sc-order-265959)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Surat Man vs Kamal Dayani and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-09-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Contempt Petition (C) Diary No. 1106 of 2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 14489 of 2023', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105450033/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-holds-police-inspector-judicial-magistrate-guilty-of-contempt-for-arrest-remand-of-accused-violating-sc-order-265959', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC held PI \[name withheld\] guilty of contempt for arrest/remand in defiance of interim anticipatory bail; fined Rs 25,000.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-2024-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0015)

## Gujarat Railway Police Police Constable and others vs State of Gujarat & Ors. (CW-2025-0003)

**Record:** CW-2025-0003 (compiler id CWC-0135); case GUJARA-006
**Title:** Gujarat Railway Police Police Constable and others vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
**Case number / citation:** R/Special Civil Application Nos. 25294 of 2007 with 13000 of 2008 / 2025:GUJHC:24473
**Judgment:** 2025-04-24 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-02-27 (2002)
**Place:** Panchmahal, Gujarat; city town: Godhra; police station or unit: Gujarat Railway Police (Mobile Squad / Ahmedabad Railway Police Station); force: railway
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956 r.3(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Gujarat Railway Police, Mobile Squad; Police Constable, Gujarat Railway Police, Mobile Squad; Police Constable, Gujarat Railway Police, Mobile Squad; Police Constable, Gujarat Railway Police, Mobile Squad; Head Constable, Ahmedabad Railway Police Station; Police Constable, Ahmedabad Railway Police Station; Police Constable, Ahmedabad Railway Police Station; Police Constable, Ahmedabad Railway Police Station; Police Constable, Ahmedabad Railway Police Station (9 in record)
**Victims:** Godhra resident (58 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Gujarat High Court upheld the removal from service of nine Gujarat Railway Police constables for abandoning escort duty on the Sabarmati Express on 26-27 February 2002. The Court found they made a false entry at Dahod that they were departing by that train but instead boarded the Shanti Express, leaving the A-category train without any police escort when coach S-6 was set ablaze at Godhra killing 58 people. It rejected the pleas of bias and disproportionality, holding the bogus entries and abandonment proved and the penalty consonant with the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. Both petitions were dismissed on merits. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> If, the petitioners had departed in Sabarmati express train itself to reach Ahmedabad, the incident that have occurred at Godhra could have been prevented.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/sca252942007gjhc240551872007192924042025-2025gujhc24473-598344.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/gujarat-high-court-godhra-train-burning-2002-dismissal-constables-291090); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/amp/news-updates/sabarmati-burning-couldve-been-prevented-if-escort-cops-did-their-duty-gujarat-hc-1400183)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Gujarat Railway Police Police Constable and others vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-04-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2025:GUJHC:24473', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/sca252942007gjhc240551872007192924042025-2025gujhc24473-598344.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/gujarat-high-court-godhra-train-burning-2002-dismissal-constables-291090', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/amp/news-updates/sabarmati-burning-couldve-been-prevented-if-escort-cops-did-their-duty-gujarat-hc-1400183', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Removal of 9 railway constables upheld (Justice Nanavati, 24 Apr 2025); verified via detailed LiveLaw report quoting order.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0003)

## Savarkundla Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat (CW-2025-0015)

**Record:** CW-2025-0015 (compiler id CWC-0148); case SWCUSTOD-021; aliases: CWC-1461
**Title:** Savarkundla Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Gita Gopi
**Case number / citation:** R/Criminal Appeal No. 1138 of 2000
**Judgment:** 2025-08-14 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-10-27 (1989)
**Place:** Amreli, Gujarat; city town: Savarkundla; police station or unit: Savarkundla Town Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 330; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Savarkundla Town Police Station, Amreli (1 in record)
**Victims:** Savarkundla man, age 22 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 7 yrs; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal of deceased PSI of Savarkundla Town police station, continued by his legal heirs, upholding his conviction for the custodial death on 27.10.1989 of 22-year-old a Savarkundla man @ Bhoplo Waghri, picked up for interrogation in a theft complaint and beaten with sticks, kicks and fist blows to extort a confession, dying the same night with 23 external and 5 internal injuries. The Court held the custodial death proved by police records including the appellant's own Accident Death Report, rejected the parity plea based on the six acquitted policemen, and upheld 7 years RI under Section 304-II and 3 years RI under Section 330 with Rs 25,000 compensation to the victim's heirs realizable as arrears of land revenue. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It was not a crime buried with the grave, but was in police custody, where every police becomes answerable to the public for his custodial torture.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191741402/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/gujarat-high-court-custodial-death-1989-case-22-year-old-cop-conviction-300986); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/cra11382000gjhc24031306200041314082025-615481.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 103
**display title redacted:** Savarkundla Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'R/Criminal Appeal No. 1138 of 2000', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-08-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'R/Criminal Appeal No. 1138 of 2000', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191741402/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/gujarat-high-court-custodial-death-1989-case-22-year-old-cop-conviction-300986', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/cra11382000gjhc24031306200041314082025-615481.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed appeal (via deceased PSI's heirs) and upheld 7y RI for 1989 custodial death; Rs 25,000 to victim heirs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0015)

## Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol v. State of Gujarat (CW-2025-0023)

**Record:** CW-2025-0023 (compiler id CWC-0138); case GUJARA-009; aliases: CWC-1480
**Title:** Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol v. State of Gujarat
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: R.T. Vachhani
**Case number / citation:** R/Criminal Revision Application No. 424 of 2011 / 2025:GUJHC:57972
**Judgment:** 2025-10-01 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-12-14 (2003)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat; city town: Ahmedabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 s.66(1)(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.25 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

Police constable Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol was found intoxicated while on point duty at Pirana Toll Naka, Ahmedabad, on 14 December 2003, with blood alcohol of 0.0945% w/v against the 0.05% limit. A Metropolitan Magistrate convicted him under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (three months' simple imprisonment and Rs.500 fine) in February 2010, and the Sessions Court dismissed his appeal in 2011. The Gujarat High Court held the FSL chain and Blood Test Rules complied with and that the acquittal under Section 85(1)(3) did not affect the Section 66(1)(b) conviction. Dismissing the revision, the Court held on-duty intoxication by a policeman a grave misconduct, refused probation or sentence reduction, and ordered surrender within two weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Police officers enjoy certain protections; however, they are not above the law. Being found intoxicated while on duty, undermines the integrity and efficiency of police personnel and, otherwise damages and erodes public trust in law enforcement agencies.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/gujarat-high-court-intoxication-duty-public-trust-integrity-conviction-police-constable-305912); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/gujarat-high-court/mahendrasinh-balusinh-raol-v-state-of-gujarat-2025gujhc57972-intoxicated-on-duty-integrity-police-personnel-constable-conviction-1593558); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/68df73a0e5b2aa37aa85803f); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/mahendrasinh-balusinh-raol-vs-state-of-gujarat-624254.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol v. State of Gujarat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2025:GUJHC:57972', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-10-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2025:GUJHC:57972', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/gujarat-high-court-intoxication-duty-public-trust-integrity-conviction-police-constable-305912', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/gujarat-high-court/mahendrasinh-balusinh-raol-v-state-of-gujarat-2025gujhc57972-intoxicated-on-duty-integrity-police-personnel-constable-conviction-1593558', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/68df73a0e5b2aa37aa85803f', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/mahendrasinh-balusinh-raol-vs-state-of-gujarat-624254.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC dismissed revision, upheld constable's Prohibition Act conviction for on-duty intoxication.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0023)

## Gujarat Police Police Constable v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (CW-2026-0013)

**Record:** CW-2026-0013 (compiler id CWC-0152); case SWBRIBER-002; aliases: CWC-0506
**Title:** Gujarat Police Police Constable v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court; judges: Maulik J. Shelat
**Case number / citation:** R/Special Civil Application No. 7162 of 2022 / 2026:GUJHC:20681; 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 99
**Judgment:** 2026-03-20 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2010-08-12 (2010)
**Place:** Tapi, Gujarat; city town: Vyara; police station or unit: Tapi ACB Police Station / Tapi, Gujarat Police (ACB C.R. No. I-4/2010); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13; Constitution Art. 311; Bombay Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1956 r.3
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Gujarat Police (appointed 30.04.2001) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition of Police Constable, upholding his dismissal from service on 19 July 2019 following his conviction on 30 April 2019 by the Additional (Ad-hoc) Sessions Judge, Tapi at Vyara in ACB Case CR No.I-4/2010 under Sections 7, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that no show-cause notice or hearing was required before dismissal on conviction, applying the second proviso to Article 311(2) and the Constitution Bench ruling in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel. It noted his criminal appeal (No.1080/2019) was admitted but only the sentence, not the conviction, had been suspended. Since his conduct led to conviction under the 1988 Act, the dismissal suffered from no error of law. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Since the conduct of the petitioner lead to his conviction under the Act, 1988, in the aforesaid ACB case, the impugned order dismissing him from service suffers from no error of law.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/03/23/2-663297.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/gujarat-high-court-police-constable-dismissal-corruption-case-527557); [courtbook.in](https://courtbook.in/posts/gujarat-hc-dismissal-without-notice-corruption-case); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85005193/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16.1
**display title redacted:** Gujarat Police Police Constable v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-03-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gujarat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2026:GUJHC:20681; 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 99', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/03/23/2-663297.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/gujarat-high-court-police-constable-dismissal-corruption-case-527557', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://courtbook.in/posts/gujarat-hc-dismissal-without-notice-corruption-case', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85005193/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gujarat HC judgment PDF verified; dismissal after PC Act conviction upheld under Art.311(2) proviso.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0013)

## Rajkot Man vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (CW-2026-0104)

**Record:** CW-2026-0104 (compiler id CWC-1394)
**Title:** Rajkot Man vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
**Court:** Gujarat High Court (verified as High Court of Gujarat); judges: M. K. Thakker
**Case number / citation:** R/Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 9593 of 2024
**Judgment:** 2026-09-28 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2023-03-25 (2023)
**Place:** Rajkot, Gujarat; city town: Rajkot; police station or unit: Pradhyumannagar Police Station, Rajkot; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-charge, Pradhyumannagar Police Station, Rajkot (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rajkot man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court recorded that a Joint Director General of Foreign Trade at Rajkot, arrested by the CBI in a bribery trap on 24.03.2023, was kept in his office overnight while the post-trap panchnama continued, and died on the morning of 25.03.2023 after, as a CBI constable reported, jumping from a window. Rajkot's Pradhyumannagar police registered only an accidental-death inquiry; an SIT found the CBI officers had not taken proper care but were not involved in the death, and a judicial inquiry under Section 176 CrPC found they had caused no harm. His family sought an FIR alleging murder. On 28.09.2026 the High Court held that, instead of registering an FIR or treating the family's complaint as a private complaint, the police had folded it into the Section 176 inquiry, contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Lalita Kumari. It directed registration of an FIR against an unknown person and further investigation under the supervision of the DIG, CID Crime, with a report within three months.

> instead of taking appropriate action, either by registering an FIR or by treating the same as a private complaint, the said complaint was made a part of the inquiry conducted under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174018341/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Court finding', 'position_explainer': 'A court has made a finding on this allegation.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Rajkot Man vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-10-05', 'scope': 'Copwatch convictions sweep (5 Oct): record written from the judgment text on Indian Kanoon; quote checked verbatim; no personal finding against any officer is claimed.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Gujarat', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "The High Court held the police had not registered an FIR on the family's complaint about a death in CBI custody and had folded it into the Section 176 inquiry; it directed an FIR against an unknown person and investigation under the supervision of the DIG, CID Crime, with a report in three months.", 'disposition': 'Adverse finding (failure to register FIR in a custodial death) · FIR and supervised investigation directed · no compensation', 'source': 'R/SCR.A/9593/2024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-10-05
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174018341/', 'link_checked': '2026-10-05'}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Checked against the Gujarat High Court judgment dated 28.09.2026 (Indian Kanoon). The custody timeline is at paras 2.1-2.3, the SIT and judicial-inquiry conclusions at paras 2.5-2.6, the finding on non-registration at para 12, and the direction for an FIR and DIG-supervised investigation at para 17. The court made no finding that any officer caused the death; the SIT and the judicial inquiry had found no CBI involvement. Names of the deceased, his family and the officers are withheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0104](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0104)

## Assandh Police Sub-Inspector and others vs The State of Punjab and Others (CW-1965-0001)

**Record:** CW-1965-0001 (compiler id CWC-0891); case GAP2-49-007
**Title:** Assandh Police Sub-Inspector and others vs The State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Shamsher Bahadur
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ No. 1913 of 1963 / (1965) 03 P&H CK 0019
**Judgment:** 1965-03-10 (1965, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1959-07-22 (1959)
**Place:** Karnal, Haryana; city town: Assandh; police station or unit: Police Station Assandh (Punjab Police at the time; now Haryana Police); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 227; Punjab Police Rules 1934 r.16.38(2); Punjab Police Rules 1934 r.16.28(1)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, SHO, Police Station Assandh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Assandh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Sub-Inspector \[name withheld\], SHO of Police Station Assandh, was alleged to have beaten an Assandh man, confined him in the police station on the night of 22-23 July 1959, and accepted a Rs 300 bribe from him after recovering opium from an Assandh man's brother \[name withheld\]. After a Vigilance examination, a departmental enquiry initially found the allegations not proved, but the DIG called for the record, held the bribery charge proved, and dismissed him on 28 October 1961, and his appeal was rejected on 10 September 1963. The High Court repelled challenges on Rule 16.38 compliance, the DIG's competence under Rule 16.28, bias, and pre-enquiry association, holding there was no jurisdictional error in the dismissal order. It dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, leaving the bribery dismissal intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> All that is required is that the petitioner should be given an adequate opportunity at the time of enquiry and when he is to be removed from service. At both stages the petitioner was asked to furnish his explanations which were duly, considered by the appropriate authorities. There is no force in this petition which fails and is dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/130212/ram-singh-dhawan-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9-10
**display title redacted:** Assandh Police Sub-Inspector and others vs The State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1965-03-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1965) 03 P&H CK 0019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/130212/ram-singh-dhawan-vs-the-state-of-punjab-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; SHO's dismissal on proved Rs 300 bribery charge upheld — disciplinary_upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1965-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1965-0001)

## Ambala Police Constable (No. 1751) vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab and Others (CW-1967-0001)

**Record:** CW-1967-0001 (compiler id CWC-0892); case GAP2-49-008
**Title:** Ambala Police Constable (No. 1751) vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Tek Chand
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ No. 756 of 1966 / AIR 1970 P&H 81; (1968) 1 ILR (P&H) 368
**Judgment:** 1967-08-01 (1967, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1965-01-03 (1965)
**Place:** Ambala, Haryana; city town: Ambala; police station or unit: Police Lines, Ambala; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Punjab Police Rules 1934 r.16.2(1)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (No. 1751), Police Lines, Ambala (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Constable (No. 1751), posted at the Police Lines, Ambala, allegedly consumed liquor off duty on 3 January 1965 and created a noisy, rowdy scene in Barrack No. 1, and the police doctor opined he had taken liquor. An enquiry by Sub-Inspector held him guilty, and the SP dismissed him on 4 March 1965 for grave misconduct, affirmed on departmental appeal and revision. The High Court held that no prejudice was caused by non-supply of the Reserve Inspector's report, that the medical and other evidence sustained the finding, and that the gravest-misconduct standard for dismissal under Rule 16.2(1) was met on these facts. It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the dismissal intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Having carefully gone through the impugned orders, I cannot find any error or lacunao which may be deemed to be apparent on the face of the record. After giving due weight to the issues raised, I find the petition devoid of merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1669326/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/610712/bhagwat-parshad-vs-inspector-general)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Ambala Police Constable (No. 1751) vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1967-08-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1970 P&H 81; (1968) 1 ILR (P&H) 368', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1669326/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/610712/bhagwat-parshad-vs-inspector-general', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; dismissal for drunken rowdyism in Police Lines upheld — disciplinary_upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1967-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1967-0001)

## Haryana Police CID Police Constable vs The State of Haryana (CW-1975-0001)

**Record:** CW-1975-0001 (compiler id CWC-0156); case SUPREM-037
**Title:** Haryana Police CID Police Constable vs The State of Haryana
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: P. K. Goswami; P. N. Bhagwati; N. L. Untwalia
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1971 / AIR 1976 SC 202; (1976) 1 SCC 389
**Judgment:** 1975-12-09 (1975, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1968-04-25 (1968)
**Place:** Sonipat, Haryana (district at time: Rohtak); city town: Murthal (Sonepat); police station or unit: Haryana Police (CID); trap at Dogra Hotel, Sonepat; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 165-A
**Officers (gated display forms):** CID Police Constable, Haryana Police (CID) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of CID constable, who offered Rs 1,000 to Head Constable to substitute seized stolen gold coins recovered from Rameshwar Dass at Murthal bus stand on 25 April 1968 and sabotage the Section 411 IPC case. \[name withheld\] reported to the DSP, and a raiding party caught \[name withheld\] at Dogra Hotel with substitute coins and the bribe money. The Court held a 'hostile' witness's testimony can sustain conviction if corroborated, upholding one year's RI under Section 165-A IPC. (Headnote loosely calls the appellant a Head Constable; the judgment body states he is a CID police constable.). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> There is, therefore, clear abetment by the appellant of the offence under section 161 I.P.C. and the ingredients of section 165A I.P.C. are established against him.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1027045/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Haryana Police CID Police Constable vs The State of Haryana
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1976 SC 202; (1976) 1 SCC 389', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1975-12-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1976 SC 202; (1976) 1 SCC 389', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1027045/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified: CID constable's Sec 165-A conviction (1 yr RI) upheld; hostile-witness plea rejected.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1975-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1975-0001)

## Haryana Police Sub-Inspector (in charge of Police Station, Solan) vs State of Haryana (CW-1979-0001)

**Record:** CW-1979-0001 (compiler id CWC-0155); case HARYAN-001
**Title:** Haryana Police Sub-Inspector (in charge of Police Station, Solan) vs State of Haryana
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. Murtaza Fazal Ali; A. D. Koshal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 1974 / AIR 1979 SC 1820; (1980) 1 SCC 124
**Judgment:** 1979-02-14 (1979, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1969-12-19 (1969)
**Place:** Ambala, Haryana; city town: Ambala; police station or unit: Police Station Solan (SHO); trap laid at Ambala; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1947 s.5(2); IPC 161
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (in charge of Police Station, Solan), Haryana Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ambala man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Sub-Inspector, in charge of a police station investigating a Bank of Patiala godown theft reported by an Ambala man, who demanded Rs 3,000 to help the complainant. Haryana Vigilance trapped him at Ambala on 19 December 1969, recovering the marked currency notes with the hand-wash turning red. The Court held the independent witnesses unshaken and refused leniency, upholding one year's RI with a Rs 2,000 fine under Section 5(2) of the 1947 PC Act and one year's RI under Section 161 IPC, concurrent. (Posting stated as PS Solan; trap and prosecution at Ambala, Haryana.). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This fact, however, has been proved by the evidence of independent witnesses and accepted by two courts and we find ourselves unable to differ with the view taken by them. Moreover, the appellant was clever Police Officer and wanted to take all possible precautions.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1560370/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** Haryana Police Sub-Inspector (in charge of Police Station, Solan) vs State of Haryana
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1979 SC 1820; (1980) 1 SCC 124', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1979-02-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1979 SC 1820; (1980) 1 SCC 124', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1560370/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified: SHO's Rs 3,000 bribe conviction upheld (1 yr RI Sec 5(2) PC Act + 1 yr Sec 161); appeal dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1979-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1979-0001)

## Haryana Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Haryana (CW-1980-0002)

**Record:** CW-1980-0002 (compiler id CWC-0164); case HARYAN-010
**Title:** Haryana Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Haryana
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: V.R. Krishna Iyer; E.S. Venkataramiah
**Case number / citation:** SLP (Crl) No. 679 of 1980 / AIR 1980 SC 1087; (1980) 3 SCC 70
**Judgment:** 1980-03-31 (1980, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1978-01-01 (1978)
**Place:** Haryana; police station or unit: Haryana police post (in charge); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Haryana Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Haryana man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court dismissed ASI 's special leave petition and sustained his life sentence for murdering theft suspect \[name withheld\] by custodial torture. In charge of a Haryana police post, the officer subjected suspects in an overnight theft case to severe flagellation, including the soles of the feet, as 'investigation'; a Haryana man succumbed inside police premises to asphyxiation with torture marks, and the officer's false explanation of suicidal hanging was rejected by the trial court and the High Court. Denouncing the diabolical recurrence of police torture, the Court found no error in the appreciation of evidence and urged the State to stamp out third-degree methods. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We are deeply disturbed by the diabolical recurrence of police torture resulting in a terrible scare in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new peril when the guardians of the law gore human rights to death.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/446624/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abebe4b014971140da4c)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Haryana Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Haryana
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1980 SC 1087; (1980) 3 SCC 70', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1980-03-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1980 SC 1087; (1980) 3 SCC 70', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/446624/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abebe4b014971140da4c', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; ASI's murder conviction (life) for custodial torture-death, SLP dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1980-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1980-0002)

## Bhiwani Man vs \[name withheld\] (CW-1984-0001)

**Record:** CW-1984-0001 (compiler id CWC-0890); case GAP2-49-005
**Title:** Bhiwani Man vs \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: B.S. Yadav
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Revision No. 10 of 1982 / (1984) 01 P&H CK 0029
**Judgment:** 1984-01-31 (1984, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-05-03 (1980)
**Place:** Bhiwani, Haryana; city town: Bhiwani; police station or unit: Police Station City Bhiwani, Haryana Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 323; Probation of Offenders Act 1958 s.4(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Police Station City Bhiwani, Haryana Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bhiwani man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

SHO of Police Station City Bhiwani arrested complainant \[name withheld\] on 3 May 1980 after a gold-smuggling search of his shop and house recovered nothing, and the judgment records that the SHO tortured him in custody to extort money before handing him to Central Excise inspectors who also beat him. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, convicted the SHO under Sections 330 and 323 IPC on 17 November 1980 but released him on one year's probation, and both sides' appeals were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. In revision the High Court held that probation had been granted without calling for the Probation Officer's report, in breach of the mandatory Section 4(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It left the conviction undisturbed, set aside the probation orders, and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh orders on sentence. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> After completion of the trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the respondent under section 330 and 323 of the Code and gave him benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short the Act) and released him on probation for one year.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/133391/laxmi-narain-appellant-hash-ram-chander-respondent/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1782919/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Bhiwani Man vs \[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1984) 01 P&H CK 0029', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1984-01-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(1984) 01 P&H CK 0029', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/133391/laxmi-narain-appellant-hash-ram-chander-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1782919/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Conviction u/ss 330/323 IPC left intact; probation set aside and remanded for fresh sentence — conviction_upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1984-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1984-0001)

## Prem Chand and Anr. vs State of Haryana (CW-1989-0001)

**Record:** CW-1989-0001 (compiler id CWC-0163); case HARYAN-009
**Title:** Prem Chand and Anr. vs State of Haryana
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: B.C. Ray; S. Ratnavel Pandian
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 544-45 of 1986 / AIR 1989 SC 937; 1989 Supp (1) SCC 286
**Judgment:** 1989-01-31 (1989, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1984-05-31 (1984)
**Place:** Bhiwani, Haryana; city town: Bhiwani; police station or unit: Police Post Patram Gate; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 376(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Prem Chand; Police personnel, Police Post Patram Gate, Bhiwani (2 in record)
**Victims:** Bhiwani woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of two Bhiwani police-post officials who raped the complainant inside Police Post Patram Gate after bringing her and her companion there from the bus stand on their way to Jammu. The trial court had convicted both policemen under Section 376(2) IPC with the 10-year minimum, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the convictions while acquitting the co-accused \[name withheld\]. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions but invoked the proviso to Section 376(2) to reduce each sentence from 10 to 5 years' RI, a ruling widely criticised for negating the 1983 minimum-sentence amendment; the State's review was dismissed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of both these appellants as confirmed by the High Court, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment in respect of each of the appellants from 10 years to 5 years. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of subject to the modification of sentence, as indicated above.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1635563/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/476694/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Prem Chand and Anr. vs State of Haryana
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1989 SC 937; 1989 Supp (1) SCC 286', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1989-01-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1989 SC 937; 1989 Supp (1) SCC 286', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1635563/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/476694/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; custodial rape convictions of two policemen affirmed, sentence cut 10 to 5 years.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'the complainant'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1989-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1989-0001)

## Cheeka Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Haryana (CW-1993-0007)

**Record:** CW-1993-0007 (compiler id CWC-0681); case GAP1-001
**Title:** Cheeka Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Haryana
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. Jayachandra Reddy; N.P. Singh
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal (arising from Punjab and Haryana High Court Criminal Appeal No. 10-DBA of 1988) / (1993) Supp (3) SCC 336; AIR 1993 SC 2302; 1993 Cri LJ 2092
**Judgment:** 1993-04-28 (1993, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1986-09-15 (1986)
**Place:** Kaithal, Haryana (district at time: Kurukshetra); city town: Cheeka; police station or unit: Police Post Cheeka / CIA Staff Cheeka, Guhla; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34; IPC 323; IPC 324; IPC 343
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Post Cheeka, Guhla; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Post Cheeka, Guhla; Constable, Police Post Cheeka, Guhla; Constable, Police Post Cheeka, Guhla (4 in record)
**Victims:** Cheeka man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

A Cheeka man, a theft suspect re-arrested on 8 September 1986, was held in the Cheeka police lock-up where his father, uncle and the village Sarpanch saw all four accused policemen beat him over several days. On 15 September 1986 the police threw his body under a bus to fake a road accident; the post-mortem found 15 injuries with fractured ribs and injuries to the liver, spleen and testes. The Sessions Court had let the officers off on probation, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court convicted them under Section 304 Part I IPC with 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court held the custodial beating proved beyond reasonable doubt, treated the officers' failure to explain the custody death as fatal, but altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC (knowledge, not intention) and reduced each sentence to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This is yet another case of death in police custody.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1240824/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 1
**display title redacted:** Cheeka Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Haryana
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1993) Supp (3) SCC 336; AIR 1993 SC 2302; 1993 Cri LJ 2092', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1993-04-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(1993) Supp (3) SCC 336; AIR 1993 SC 2302; 1993 Cri LJ 2092', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1240824/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified; custodial death by police beating upheld, conviction modified to IPC 304 Part II with 5 years RI each.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1993-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1993-0007)

## Haryana Police Superintendent of Police vs State of Haryana and Others (CW-1995-0011)

**Record:** CW-1995-0011 (compiler id CWC-1101); case GAP3-127-009
**Title:** Haryana Police Superintendent of Police vs State of Haryana and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Dr. A. S. Anand; Faizan Uddin
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 15 of 1994 / AIR 1995 SC 1795; (1995) 3 SCC 214
**Judgment:** 1995-05-02 (1995, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-01-15 (1994)
**Place:** Hisar, Haryana (district at time: Hissar); city town: Hisar; police station or unit: Police Station Sadar, Hisar; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** Contempt of Courts Act 1971 s.2(c); Contempt of Courts Act 1971 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police, Hisar, Haryana Police; Additional Superintendent of Police, Hisar, Haryana Police; Inspector / Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Hisar, Haryana Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Hisar man; Hisar man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.25 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court on 2 May 1995 convicted three Haryana Police officers — SP, Addl. SP and SHO of Sadar, Hissar — of criminal contempt in a habeas corpus case. The Court, acting on a CBI enquiry report, found that a Hisar man and taxi driver \[name withheld\] had been illegally detained at Hissar police station from 15 to 17 January 1994, that the officers filed false affidavits denying the detention, and that two of them tutored the driver to give false evidence while proceedings were pending. The Court rejected their apologies as not genuine, calling their conduct a calculated obstruction of justice. It sentenced the SP to two months' simple imprisonment and the other two to three months each with fines of Rs. 1,500, while dropping perjury proceedings and declining compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> respondents 3 to 5 have, thus committed a grave contempt of this Court by not only interfering with the due course of justice but also making calculated and deliberate attempts to obstruct the administration of justice.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1877695/); [advocatetanmoy.com](http://advocatetanmoy.com/dhananjay-sharma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-02-05-1995/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 42
**display title redacted:** Haryana Police Superintendent of Police vs State of Haryana and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1995-05-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1995 SC 1795; (1995) 3 SCC 214', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1877695/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'http://advocatetanmoy.com/dhananjay-sharma-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others-02-05-1995/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC convicted Hissar SP, Addl SP and SHO of criminal contempt over illegal detention, false affidavits and tutoring a witness.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-1995-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1995-0011)

## Government Railway Police Superintendent of Police and Another vs State of Haryana and Others (CW-1996-0013)

**Record:** CW-1996-0013 (compiler id CWC-1108); case GAP3-127-017
**Title:** Government Railway Police Superintendent of Police and Another vs State of Haryana and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. Ramaswamy; G. B. Pattanaik
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 356-357 of 1993 / (1996) 7 SCC 397; AIR 1996 SC 2326; JT 1996 (1) 328
**Judgment:** 1996-01-17 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-10-12 (1993)
**Place:** Faridabad, Haryana; city town: Faridabad; police station or unit: GRP Faridabad / GRP Ambala Cantonment (CIA); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** IPC 193; Constitution Art 129
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police (CIA), Haryana; Sub-Inspector, Government Railway Police, Haryana; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Government Railway Police, Faridabad/Ambala, Haryana (3 in record)
**Victims:** Faridabad man; Faridabad man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court convicted three Haryana Government Railway Police officers for fabricating evidence in a habeas corpus case. The Court found that a CIA-GRP team hunting fraud accused \[name withheld\] had seized his minor son, a minor boy, and another boy a minor boy at Agra and kept them in wrongful confinement from mid-October 1993 till 31 October 1993. The Court held the counter-affidavits denying custody, proved false by DGP, District Judge and CBI inquiries, made out offences under Section 193 IPC and, for SP, criminal contempt. It sentenced \[name withheld\] to one year's RI plus six months for contempt (concurrent), the SI to six months and the ASI to three months, and directed the DGP to take them into custody. Later proceedings: on 27 October 1999, the Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction/order concerning \[name withheld\]; on 6 January 2000, the Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction/order concerning \[name withheld\]; the findings against the remaining officers stand as recorded in this judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> \[name withheld\] is unworthy to hold any office of responsibility.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/421059/); [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1996/january/afzal-anr-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-87)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 72
**display title redacted:** Government Railway Police Superintendent of Police and Another vs State of Haryana and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-01-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1996) 7 SCC 397; AIR 1996 SC 2326; JT 1996 (1) 328', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '1999-10-27', 'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/504950/', 'outcome': 'conviction_set_aside'}; {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2000-01-06', 'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/698665/', 'outcome': 'conviction_set_aside'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/421059/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1996/january/afzal-anr-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-87', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC convicted SP, SI and ASI under s.193 IPC (SP also Art 129 contempt) for false affidavits denying custody of two confined minors.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-1996-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0013)

## Government Railway Police Superintendent of Police vs State of Haryana and Another (CW-1999-0012)

**Record:** CW-1999-0012 (compiler id CWC-1109); case GAP3-127-018
**Title:** Government Railway Police Superintendent of Police vs State of Haryana and Another
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Dr. A. S. Anand; S. Rajendra Babu; R. C. Lahoti
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 353 of 1997 / AIR 2000 SC 168; 1999 Supp(4) SCR 160
**Judgment:** 1999-10-27 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-11-02 (1993)
**Place:** Faridabad, Haryana; city town: Faridabad; police station or unit: Government Railway Police, Haryana; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 193; Constitution Art 129; CrPC 195; CrPC 340
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police, Haryana (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 0.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court partly allowed IPS officer 's Article 32 challenge to his 17 January 1996 conviction for fabricating records in the Afzal habeas corpus matter, while expressly upholding his contempt conviction. The Court held the Section 193 IPC conviction, imposed via show-cause notice, was without jurisdiction because the mandatory Sections 195/340 CrPC complaint procedure had been bypassed and Article 142 could not supplant it. It therefore recalled the Section 193 conviction but directed no fresh complaint since the sentence had already been undergone. The Court expressly upheld the Article 129 contempt conviction and six-month sentence, recording the petitioner's undertaking to claim no compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> To perpetuate an error is no virtue but to correct it is a compulsion of judicial conscience. We, therefore, unhesitatingly set aside the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 193 IPC. We also do not at this stage, consider it expedient to direct the filing of a complaint in the competent court as envisaged by Section 340 Cr.P.C. because the petitioner has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him for an offence under Section 193 IPC although set aside now by this order and we are upholding his conviction and sentence imposed under Article 129 of the Constitution of India for committing contempt of court.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/504950/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Government Railway Police Superintendent of Police vs State of Haryana and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 2000 SC 168; 1999 Supp(4) SCR 160', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1999-10-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 2000 SC 168; 1999 Supp(4) SCR 160', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/504950/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** s.193 IPC conviction recalled for want of Ss.195/340 CrPC procedure; Art 129 contempt conviction and 6-month sentence expressly upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1999-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0012)

## Narwana Man and Others vs State of Haryana and Others (CW-2000-0012)

**Record:** CW-2000-0012 (compiler id CWC-0886); case GAP2-49-001
**Title:** Narwana Man and Others vs State of Haryana and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: K. S. Kumaran
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1263 of 1996 / (2000) 2 RCR (Criminal) 560
**Judgment:** 2000-03-31 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-07-29 (1996)
**Place:** Jind, Haryana; city town: Narwana; police station or unit: Police Station Sadar Narwana; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; Excise Act s.61(1)(14); Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226/227
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Station Sadar Narwana; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Sadar Narwana; Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Narwana; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narwana (4 in record)
**Victims:** Narwana man, age 41 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court accepted a Sessions Judge's enquiry finding that a Narwana man, 41, was illegally arrested and murdered in the custody of Police Station Sadar Narwana on the night of 28-29 July 1996 by being given alcohol laced with aluminium phosphide. The court rejected the police and co-detainee accounts as unreliable, held the State vicariously liable under Nilabati Behera and D.K. Basu, and awarded Rs 1,50,000 compensation payable within two months. It transferred investigation of FIR No. 268 of 1996 under Section 302 IPC to the CBI for prosecution of the guilty, leaving individual culpability to that probe. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, from the materials placed before the Court, especially the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and the opinion of the Board of Doctors, who gave the opinion that a Narwana man died of aluminium phosphide (celphos) poisoning, it is clear that a Narwana man had been killed while he was in police custody by giving/infesting into him the ethyle alcohol and the above said poison.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/154381/rajwant-kaur-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Narwana Man and Others vs State of Haryana and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-03-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2000) 2 RCR (Criminal) 560', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/154381/rajwant-kaur-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held a Narwana man illegally arrested and murdered in custody by poisoning; Rs 1.5L compensation and CBI probe ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2000-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0012)

## Gurgaon Police Head Constable vs State of Haryana (CW-2009-0017)

**Record:** CW-2009-0017 (compiler id CWC-1068); case GAP3-112-003
**Title:** Gurgaon Police Head Constable vs State of Haryana
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No.23-SB of 1996
**Judgment:** 2009-01-06 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-08-31 (1992)
**Place:** Gurugram, Haryana (district at time: Gurgaon); city town: Gurgaon; police station or unit: Police Station City Gurgaon; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(ii)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Station City Gurgaon (1 in record)
**Victims:** Gurgaon man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the corruption conviction of Head Constable of Police Station City Gurgaon, who was caught red-handed accepting a Rs.1,000 bribe he had demanded for not implicating complainant \[name withheld\] in a theft case. A trap team recovered initialed phenolphthalein-smeared notes from him and his hand-wash turned pink. The Court held demand, acceptance and recovery proved, rejecting the defence of enmity and the missing shadow witness, and dismissed the appeal. It reduced the sentence from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment only because the proceedings had dragged on for sixteen years since 1992. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Prosecution in present case has proved, demand, acceptance and recovery. They are sufficient to corroborate the testimony of PW-4 \[name withheld\].

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/687389/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Gurgaon Police Head Constable vs State of Haryana
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No.23-SB of 1996', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2009-01-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No.23-SB of 1996', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/687389/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC confirmed red-handed PC Act conviction of Head Constable; sentence cut to 1 year RI for delay.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0017)

## Palam Vihar Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs The State of Haryana (CW-2009-0022)

**Record:** CW-2009-0022 (compiler id CWC-1067); case GAP3-112-002
**Title:** Palam Vihar Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs The State of Haryana
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Sham Sunder
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No.222-SB of 1995
**Judgment:** 2009-04-01 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-09-01 (1991)
**Place:** Gurugram, Haryana (district at time: Gurgaon); city town: Palam Vihar; police station or unit: Police Post Palam Vihar, Gurgaon; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(ii); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Post Palam Vihar, Gurgaon (1 in record)
**Victims:** Palam Vihar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal of ASI, Incharge of Police Post Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, who had demanded Rs.10,000 from civil contractor \[name withheld\] to delete his name from a case and release his seized Maruti van, beating him when he resisted. The Special Judge, Gurgaon had convicted him under s.13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment with a Rs.1,000 fine. The High Court held demand and acceptance of gratification proved, rejected challenges to delay, witnesses and sanction, and upheld the conviction and sentence while converting the conviction to s.13(2). The appellant's bail bonds were cancelled. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, with the aforesaid conversion, are upheld.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60061874/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Palam Vihar Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs The State of Haryana
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No.222-SB of 1995', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2009-04-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No.222-SB of 1995', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60061874/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed appeal and upheld PC Act conviction of ASI, converting it to s.13(2).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0022)

## ASI Rajender Parshad vs State of Haryana and Others (CW-2010-0003)

**Record:** CW-2010-0003 (compiler id CWC-0167); case HARYAN-013
**Title:** ASI Rajender Parshad vs State of Haryana and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel; Alok Singh
**Case number / citation:** LPA No. 458 of 2010 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2010-04-07 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-05-01 (2007)
**Place:** Rewari, Haryana; city town: Khol; police station or unit: PS Khol; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Rajender Parshad (Assistant Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed LPA 458 of 2010 and upheld the dismissal of ASI Rajender Parshad for receiving illegal gratification. The Court noted he was suspended in May 2007 and booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act at PS Khol, Rewari, and though the criminal court acquitted him on 13 May 2008, a departmental enquiry returned a verdict of guilt leading to dismissal on 30 August 2008. The Single Judge had dismissed his writ holding departmental proof differs from criminal proof. The Division Bench agreed the dismissal rested on enquiry evidence rather than criminal-court evidence and found no ground to interfere. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case, the action has not been taken on the same evidence which was led before the criminal court but on the basis of evidence which was led in the departmental enquiry.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69065641/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1029103/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** ASI Rajender Parshad vs State of Haryana and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-04-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'LPA No. 458 of 2010 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69065641/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1029103/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC Division Bench judgment verified; dismissal on enquiry evidence upheld despite criminal acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0003)

## Inspector Om Parkash v. CBI; ASI Anant Ram v. CBI; Rekha v. CBI & Ors. (CW-2010-0012)

**Record:** CW-2010-0012 (compiler id CWC-0461); case SWCUSTOD-036
**Title:** Inspector Om Parkash v. CBI; ASI Anant Ram v. CBI; Rekha v. CBI & Ors.
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: A.N. Jindal
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 795-SB and 796-SB of 1998 with Crl. Revision No. 1132 of 1999
**Judgment:** 2010-12-14 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-02-09 (1993)
**Place:** Gurugram, Haryana (district at time: Gurgaon); city town: Gurgaon; police station or unit: CIA Staff, Gurgaon; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II
**Officers (gated display forms):** Om Parkash (Inspector); Anant Ram (Assistant Sub-Inspector) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Gurgaon man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 7 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeals of a Gurgaon CIA Inspector and ASI, upholding their 7-year sentences for torturing a Gurgaon man to death in custody after he was picked up on 9 February 1993 and transferred from Delhi to CIA Staff Gurgaon. The Court relied on the jail register injury entry, the post-mortem head injury and the destruction of two MLRs, applying the custodial-death burden shift to the custodians. It held the conviction well-founded and well-reasoned. The trial acquittals of four Delhi Police officials were left undisturbed and the complainant revision was dismissed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is also well settled by now that when a person is in custody of the police and confined there, he is proved to have received injuries or died then no amount of further evidence was required to be produced by the prosecution in order to establish as to how and in what manner he died or received injuries, then the onus shifts upon the officers who remained his custodians.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86217128/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Inspector Om Parkash v. CBI; ASI Anant Ram v. CBI; Rekha v. CBI & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 795-SB and 796-SB of 1998 with Crl. Revision No. 1132 of 1999', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2010-12-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 795-SB and 796-SB of 1998 with Crl. Revision No. 1132 of 1999', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86217128/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed both appeals and revision; 7-yr terms for 2 CIA Gurgaon officers upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0012)

## Pundri Boy and another vs The State of Haryana and others (CW-2011-0001)

**Record:** CW-2011-0001 (compiler id CWC-0160); case NORTH-004
**Title:** Pundri Boy and another vs The State of Haryana and others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Ranjit Singh
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Petition No. 11653 of 2008
**Judgment:** 2011-01-12 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-08-13 (2007)
**Place:** Kaithal, Haryana; city town: Pundri; police station or unit: Police Station Pundri; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226; CrPC s.176(1A)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Police Station Pundri; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Pundri (2 in record)
**Victims:** Pundri boy, age 16; Pundri man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. a 16-year-old boy (16) and a man died of celphos poisoning while locked up at Police Station Pundri, Kaithal, following an alleged illegal detention on 11 August 2007. Official inquiries revealed gross police negligence and tampering with custody timings by SHO. The High Court held the police strictly liable for the lives of detainees in their custody under Article 21 and directed the State of Haryana to pay Rs. 5,00,000 to each victim's family. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Two persons have died while in police custody. To keep them safe and to safeguard their lives was the responsibility of the police. The police officials are, therefore, liable.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132005687/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Pundri Boy and another vs The State of Haryana and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-01-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Civil Writ Petition No. 11653 of 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132005687/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court held police strictly liable for custodial poisoning deaths of two detainees at PS Pundri and awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation to each family (Rs 10 lakh total).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 16, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 16-year-old boy'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0001)

## Kaithal Woman vs State of Haryana and Others (CW-2011-0030)

**Record:** CW-2011-0030 (compiler id CWC-0894); case GAP2-50-001
**Title:** Kaithal Woman vs State of Haryana and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Ritu Bahri
**Case number / citation:** Crl. Misc. No. M-42311 of 2007 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2011-05-27 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-06-15 (2007)
**Place:** Kaithal, Haryana; city town: Kaithal; police station or unit: Kaithal police (Manoj-Babli security detail); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Kaithal police (Manoj-Babli security detail); Sub-Inspector, Kaithal police; Police personnel, Kaithal police escort party (3 in record)
**Victims:** Kaithal man; Kaithal woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 6 lakh (Rs 6,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. A Kaithal man and a Kaithal woman, both majors, married on 7 April 2007 against a Kaithal woman's family's wishes, and the Sessions Judge Kaithal directed the SP Kaithal to ensure their safety while granting a Kaithal man anticipatory bail on 12 June 2007. After recording Section 164 CrPC statements on 15 June 2007, the couple left Kaithal in a police gypsy, but the escort party took a written no-protection note and left them at Pipli without informing superiors, while HC leaked their whereabouts to the accused; their bodies were recovered from Barwala Link Canal on 23 June 2007. The trial court convicted all the private accused on 25 March 2010 and observed the police had abandoned the couple. Relying on D.K. Basu and \[name withheld\] v. State of Punjab, the High Court rejected the State's nascent Victim Compensation Scheme defence and directed Rs 3 lakh each for the two deaths (Rs 6 lakh total) to petitioner \[name withheld\], allowing the petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> it is directed that Rs.3 lacs each on account of death of a Kaithal man and a Kaithal woman be paid to the petitioner as compensation

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60381696/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Kaithal Woman vs State of Haryana and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-05-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 600,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Crl. Misc. No. M-42311 of 2007 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60381696/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** State held liable for abandoned court-ordered protection; Rs 6 lakh compensation ordered — adverse_finding_compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0030)

## Hisar Man vs Union of India and Others (CW-2011-0032)

**Record:** CW-2011-0032 (compiler id CWC-1066); case GAP3-112-001
**Title:** Hisar Man vs Union of India and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: K. Kannan
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Petition No.5269 of 2011 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2011-07-08 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-09-16 (2008)
**Place:** Hisar, Haryana; city town: Hisar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 294
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Hisar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the custodial death of petitioner \[name withheld\]'s husband was prima facie caused by excess police action, rejecting a Special Investigation Team report that blamed a train fall and chronic drunkenness. The Court noted the Magistrate had recorded no injuries at remand, yet the post-mortem showed a fatal head injury with multiple bruises, and the sub-jail had refused to admit the man. It directed the District Judge, Hisar to hold an enquiry and report within four months, and ordered the State to pay Rs.2 lakh interim compensation within four weeks. No individual officer was named in the order. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I am of the view that the case deserves a much more serious probe, for, a precious life has been lost due to what seems on the basis of records to be an excess police action.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34282208/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** Hisar Man vs Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-07-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Civil Writ Petition No.5269 of 2011 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34282208/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Interim compensation with prima-facie excess-police-action finding; final District Judge enquiry was still pending.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0032)

## Bahadurgarh Police Head Constable vs State of Haryana (CW-2011-0017)

**Record:** CW-2011-0017 (compiler id CWC-0157); case HARYAN-003
**Title:** Bahadurgarh Police Head Constable vs State of Haryana
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: L. N. Mittal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 114-SB of 2000
**Judgment:** 2011-08-30 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-07-19 (1994)
**Place:** Jhajjar, Haryana (district at time: Rohtak); city town: Bahadurgarh; police station or unit: Police Post Linepar, PS City Bahadurgarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Post Linepar, PS City Bahadurgarh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bahadurgarh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the conviction of Head Constable of Police Post Linepar, Bahadurgarh, for demanding Rs 1,000 from a Bahadurgarh man on 18 July 1994 to hush up a matter against his brother. A trap led by DSP Shri Singh with the SDM Rohtak as shadow witness on 19 July 1994 recovered tainted notes from his shirt pocket, corroborated by hand/pocket wash. The Court held demand and acceptance proved by cogent evidence but, given 17 years' pendency and the appellant's age of 73, reduced the sentence from two years' RI to one year's RI with the Rs 1,000 fine maintained. The appellant was ordered to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

> I find that the prosecution has led sufficient cogent and credible evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly impugned judgment of conviction is affirmed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149925161/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** Bahadurgarh Police Head Constable vs State of Haryana
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 114-SB of 2000', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-08-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 114-SB of 2000', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149925161/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified: Head Constable 7 PC Act conviction affirmed; sentence cut 2 yrs to 1 yr RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0017)

## Narnaul Man vs State of Haryana & Ors (CW-2013-0003)

**Record:** CW-2013-0003 (compiler id CWC-0158); case SWFAKEEN-016
**Title:** Narnaul Man vs State of Haryana & Ors
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Aftab Alam; Ranjana Prakash Desai
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 2013 / (2013) 14 SCC 290
**Judgment:** 2013-02-14 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-10-13 (2008)
**Place:** Mahendragarh, Haryana; city town: Narnaul; police station or unit: Police Station Bawal, Rewari; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; CrPC s.154; CrPC s.482
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Bawal, District Rewari; Head Constable, Police Station Bawal, District Rewari; Constable, Police Station Bawal, District Rewari; Station House Officer, Police Station City Narnaul (4 in record)
**Victims:** Narnaul man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20 lakh (Rs 20,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Replace closing sentence ' ' with the attributed police version: per FIR No.351 dated 13/10/2008 lodged by ASI (para 4), a Narnaul man, a wanted accused, fired at the Bawal police party which returned fire in self-defence; respondents' counsel maintained it was a genuine encounter (para 6). Also replace 'due to the lapse of more than four years' with the court's own words: fresh investigation 'at this distant point of time, will be an exercise in futility' (para 13). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> After carefully perusing the inquiry report dated 17/11/2008 submitted by Tahsildar, Narnaul and the inquiry report dated 7/1/2011 submitted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and other relevant record, we are inclined to agree with learned counsel for the appellant and learned amicus curiae that a Narnaul man appears to have died in a fake encounter.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80952457/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af3be4b0149711415e5e); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/articles/judicial-intervention-in-encounters-in-india-supreme-court-atiq-ahmed-226875)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Narnaul Man vs State of Haryana & Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-02-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2013) 14 SCC 290', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80952457/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af3be4b0149711415e5e', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/articles/judicial-intervention-in-encounters-in-india-supreme-court-atiq-ahmed-226875', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court set aside High Court dismissal and awarded Rs 20 lakh compensation to the father of the deceased for fake encounter killing by Haryana police.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0003)

## Haryana Police Exemptee Head Constable vs State of Haryana and Others (CW-2013-0030)

**Record:** CW-2013-0030 (compiler id CWC-1071); case GAP3-113-002
**Title:** Haryana Police Exemptee Head Constable vs State of Haryana and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Rajiv Narain Raina
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Petition No.16680 of 2013
**Judgment:** 2013-08-02 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-09-12 (2007)
**Place:** Karnal, Haryana; city town: Karnal; police station or unit: Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13; IPC 120-B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Exemptee Head Constable, Haryana Police, District Karnal (1 in record)
**Victims:** Karnal man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition of Exemptee Head Constable of the Haryana Police, Karnal, thereby sustaining a major disciplinary penalty for bribe-taking. \[name withheld\] and Head Constable were accused in FIR No.465 of 12.9.2007 of demanding a bribe from a Karnal man under threat of a false NDPS case, but both were acquitted by the Special Judge, Karnal in 2010 after the complainant and an eyewitness turned hostile. In the parallel departmental enquiry \[name withheld\] was held guilty of demanding and taking his share of the bribe, punished with reversion to Constable, reduced on appeal to stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect plus integrity-dishonest ACRs. The Court called it proven misconduct involving moral turpitude of the worst kind and directed the DGP to re-examine the clean chit given to co-delinquent not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court cannot put a premium on proven misconduct involving moral turpitude of the worst kind.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189731314/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Haryana Police Exemptee Head Constable vs State of Haryana and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-08-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Writ Petition No.16680 of 2013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189731314/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writ, sustaining bribe-taking penalty despite criminal acquittal on hostile witnesses.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0030)

## Rewari Man vs State of Haryana and others (CW-2013-0010)

**Record:** CW-2013-0010 (compiler id CWC-0159); case HARYAN-005
**Title:** Rewari Man vs State of Haryana and others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: K. Kannan
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Petition No. 5439 of 2002
**Judgment:** 2013-08-27 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-09-20 (1990)
**Place:** Rewari, Haryana; city town: Rewari; police station or unit: Police Station Sadar Rewari; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; IPC 307; IPC 323; IPC 34; IPC 367; IPC 302; IPC 342; IPC 120
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Police Station Sadar Rewari; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Sadar Rewari (2 in record)
**Victims:** Rewari man, age 23 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Replace 'beaten to death' with attributed wording: the petitioner alleged her son was beaten mercilessly in custody (para 1); the court held death resulted from the conduct of respondents 3 and 4 with illegal detention established (para 2). Drop 'at PS Sadar Rewari' as the detention site (not stated).

> The State has to therefore be responsible for burdened with compensation for the ultimate cause of death.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46383923/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Rewari Man vs State of Haryana and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-08-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Civil Writ Petition No. 5439 of 2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46383923/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation with 6% interest for custodial death of petitioner's 23-year-old son, recoverable from convicted police officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0010)

## District Police Head Constable vs State of Haryana and others (CW-2014-0001)

**Record:** CW-2014-0001 (compiler id CWC-0161); case HARYAN-007
**Title:** District Police Head Constable vs State of Haryana and others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Jasbir Singh; Harinder Singh Sidhu
**Case number / citation:** LPA No. 1516 of 2013
**Judgment:** 2014-01-21 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-02-06 (2003)
**Place:** Panipat, Haryana; city town: Panipat; police station or unit: Commando Wing, District Police Panipat, Haryana Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13; Punjab Police Rules 1934 r.16.2(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Commando Wing, District Police Panipat, Haryana Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Head Constable of the Haryana Police Commando Wing, Panipat was convicted on 29 March 2011 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in an FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi. Following his conviction, he was dismissed from service on 7 June 2012 by Haryana Police, which he challenged contending that dismissal must await the outcome of his criminal appeal before the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his Letters Patent Appeal, holding that Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules contains no bar against dismissal pending appeal and that it is contrary to the public interest to retain a corruption convict in the police force.

> Moreover, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has in various cases held that it is not in public interest to retain in service any official who has been convicted of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Resultantly, the appeal is without merit and is dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154534730/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129035888/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** District Police Head Constable vs State of Haryana and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-01-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'LPA No. 1516 of 2013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154534730/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129035888/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court Division Bench dismissed LPA and upheld dismissal of Head Constable convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0001)

## Barwala Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Haryana & Others (CW-2014-0002)

**Record:** CW-2014-0002 (compiler id CWC-0166); case HARYAN-012
**Title:** Barwala Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Haryana & Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Augustine George Masih
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Petition No. 28466 of 2013 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2014-02-19 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-06-01 (2008)
**Place:** Panchkula, Haryana; city town: Barwala; police station or unit: Police Post Barwala; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Post Barwala, Panchkula; Constable, Police Post Barwala, Panchkula (2 in record)
**Victims:** Barwala man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the dismissal of ASI, Incharge of Police Post Barwala, who with Constable attended the drowning death of Nepali labourer a Barwala man two-year-old son at Amit Poultry Farm, Barwala. The Court found he brokered a Rs 60,000 compromise instead of taking legal action, pocketed Rs 25,000 as expenditure, gave Rs 2,000 to the constable, and got the child cremated without post-mortem, with the farm owner enquiry statement proving demand and acceptance of bribe. SP Panchkula dismissed him on 19 August 2008, affirmed on appeal, revision and mercy petition. The Court held a police official found demanding and accepting bribe is unfit to continue in service and dismissed the writ. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The conclusion drawn by the punishment authority is fully justified as a police official, who has been found to have demanded and has been paid bribe, cannot be a fit person to be continued in service.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46139803/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Barwala Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Haryana & Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-02-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Writ Petition No. 28466 of 2013 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46139803/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC judgment verified; ASI dismissal for bribe-taking upheld, writ dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0002)

## Haryana Police Head Constable vs State of Haryana and Others (CW-2014-0020)

**Record:** CW-2014-0020 (compiler id CWC-1070); case GAP3-113-001
**Title:** Haryana Police Head Constable vs State of Haryana and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Augustine George Masih
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Petition No.12030 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2014-03-03 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-05-21 (1988)
**Place:** Rohtak, Haryana; city town: Rohtak; police station or unit: Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 420; IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d); PC Act 1947 s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Haryana Police, District Rohtak (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rohtak resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition of Head Constable of the Haryana Police, Rohtak, upholding his dismissal from service following a corruption conviction. \[name withheld\] had been booked in FIR No.182 of 21.5.1988 at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, convicted by the Special Judge, Rohtak in 1989 under ss.420/161 IPC and ss.5(1)(d)/5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment; the High Court sustained the conviction in 2003 while releasing him on probation. The Court held the conviction involved moral turpitude directly relatable to his duties, probation was not exoneration, and dismissal under Article 311(2)(a) and the Punjab Police Rules was fully justified. His departmental appeal and revision had already failed in 2007-2008.

> The exercise of powers under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India and Rules 16.2(2) read with Rule 16.2(4)(ix)(b) of Punjab Police Rules, awarding punishment of dismissal from service is fully justified and in accordance with law.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23029604/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Haryana Police Head Constable vs State of Haryana and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-03-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Writ Petition No.12030 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23029604/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writ and upheld dismissal of Head Constable on PC Act/moral-turpitude conviction.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0020)

## Faridabad Man vs The State of Haryana and Others (CW-2014-0014)

**Record:** CW-2014-0014 (compiler id CWC-0682); case GAP8-004
**Title:** Faridabad Man vs The State of Haryana and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Ritu Bahri
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 14953 of 2001
**Judgment:** 2014-04-04 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-02-07 (1996)
**Place:** Faridabad, Haryana; city town: Faridabad; police station or unit: Police Post under Police Station Central, Sector-8, Faridabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 381; IPC 342; IPC 306; IPC 120-B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Post, Faridabad (PS Central, Sector-8); Incharge, Police Post, Police Post, Faridabad (PS Central, Sector-8); Constable (Moharrar), Police Post, Faridabad (PS Central, Sector-8); Head Constable, Police Station Central, Faridabad (4 in record)
**Victims:** Faridabad man, age 34 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 7.4 lakh (Rs 7,39,400)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. A Faridabad man, a 34-year-old factory worker detained from 5 to 7 February 1996 in a theft case, died in the police-post lock-up on 7 February 1996 after consuming acid kept in the toilet. The SDM Faridabad's inquiry examined 24 persons and concluded the Incharge Police Post was grossly negligent and ASI guilty of abetment to suicide, finding death in custody after mental depression, physical torture and humiliation. The criminal trial under Sections 342/306/120-B IPC had ended in acquittal in 1997, but the High Court held that was no bar to compensation under Articles 32/226 following Nilabati Behera. The Court allowed the petition and directed the State to pay the widow Rs.7,39,400 with 9% interest from filing till realisation within three months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Police Department has been negligent in keeping such a substance which is injurious to human life at large in the premises of the police post.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111804313/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Faridabad Man vs The State of Haryana and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-04-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 739,400.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'CWP No. 14953 of 2001', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111804313/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held custodial death after torture/negligence; Rs.7,39,400 compensation with 9% interest ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0014)

## Lohar Majra Man v. State of Haryana and Others (CW-2015-0002)

**Record:** CW-2015-0002 (compiler id CWC-0162); case HARYAN-008; aliases: CWC-0589; CWC-1478
**Title:** Lohar Majra Man v. State of Haryana and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: K. Kannan
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 7697 of 1999 / 2015(1) ILR Punjab and Haryana 566
**Judgment:** 2015-02-09 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-12-27 (1993)
**Place:** Kurukshetra, Haryana; city town: Lohar Majra; police station or unit: Pehowa Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra; Station House Officer / Investigating Officer, Kurukshetra (2 in record)
**Victims:** Lohar Majra man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Lohar Majra man's daughter was found raped and murdered on 27-12-1993; after he named three suspects to the SHO, he was himself detained, arrested and prosecuted for her rape and murder. The court found, relying on an earlier PIL finding and a CBI report, that the investigation was inept and motivated: the suspects were never interrogated, fingerprints were never collected, and recovery-memo evidence was manipulated. It held the petitioner had suffered malicious prosecution and unjustified incarceration at the hands of the SHO as Investigating Officer with the Superintendent of Police as mentor. The State was ordered to pay Rs. 5 lakh with 9% interest from the date of petition plus Rs. 10,000 costs, with liberty to recover from the two officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Malice is writ large in a situation that apart from prosecuting an innocent person, grave suspects were allowed to go scot-free by inept investigation and a motivated attempt to screen the real accused.

**Sources (5):** [highcourtchd.gov.in](https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/CWP_7697_1999.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61135315/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16142980/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/prosecution-of-an-innocent-man-for-rape-and-murder-violates-his-human-rights-and-he-is-entitled-to-compensation-punjab-haryana-hc); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/184376/ram-sarup-appellant-hash-state-of-haryana-and-others-respondent-2/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Lohar Majra Man v. State of Haryana and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-02-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2015(1) ILR Punjab and Haryana 566', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/CWP_7697_1999.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61135315/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16142980/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/prosecution-of-an-innocent-man-for-rape-and-murder-violates-his-human-rights-and-he-is-entitled-to-compensation-punjab-haryana-hc', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/184376/ram-sarup-appellant-hash-state-of-haryana-and-others-respondent-2/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: Rs.5 lakh + 9% interest for malicious prosecution by named SHO and SP.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2015-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0002)

## Haryana Police IPS officer v. C.B.I. and Anr. (CW-2016-0006)

**Record:** CW-2016-0006 (compiler id CWC-0339); case SUPREM-020
**Title:** Haryana Police IPS officer v. C.B.I. and Anr.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: V. Gopala Gowda; R. K. Agrawal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 2126 of 2010 / (2017) 5 SCC 817; AIR 2016 SC 4486
**Judgment:** 2016-09-23 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-08-12 (1990)
**Place:** Panchkula, Haryana; city town: Panchkula; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 354
**Officers (gated display forms):** IPS officer, Haryana Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Panchkula girl, age 15 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 0.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court confirmed the Section 354 IPC conviction of senior IPS officer for molesting 15-year-old tennis player a 15-year-old girl in his lawn-tennis association office garage in Panchkula on 12 August 1990. The Court held the eyewitness account of her friend a minor girl, who saw \[name withheld\] grab a 15-year-old girl hand and waist, was unimpeachable, and rejected the false-implication defence. It reduced the 18-month sentence to the period already undergone of about six months as a special case given his advanced age, health, family illness and prolonged trial. a 15-year-old girl died by suicide in December 1993 after alleged prolonged harassment of her family. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the foregoing discussion, we confirm the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 354 of the IPC while modifying the sentence to the period already undergone.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30822518/); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/09/23/ruchika-girhotra-case-s-p-s-rathores-conviction-upheld-sentence-mitigated-due-to-old-age/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/ruchika-molestation-case-sc-upholds-rathods-conviction-reduces-jail-term)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 36
**display title redacted:** Haryana Police IPS officer v. C.B.I. and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2017) 5 SCC 817; AIR 2016 SC 4486', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2016-09-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2017) 5 SCC 817; AIR 2016 SC 4486', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30822518/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/09/23/ruchika-girhotra-case-s-p-s-rathores-conviction-upheld-sentence-mitigated-due-to-old-age/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/ruchika-molestation-case-sc-upholds-rathods-conviction-reduces-jail-term', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** s.354 conviction of IPS officer confirmed; 18-month sentence cut to period undergone as special case.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 15, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a 15-year-old girl'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0006)

## Haryana Police Inspector vs State of Haryana (CW-2017-0019)

**Record:** CW-2017-0019 (compiler id CWC-1072); case GAP3-114-001
**Title:** Haryana Police Inspector vs State of Haryana
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Kuldip Singh
**Case number / citation:** CWP No.24214 of 2015 (O&M) / (2017) 03 P&H CK 0127
**Judgment:** 2017-03-21 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-07-07 (2012)
**Place:** Haryana; police station or unit: State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon (FIR No.17 of 07.07.2012); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Haryana Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Haryana man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition of Inspector of the Haryana Police, upholding a 15% cut in pension imposed for bribe-taking. \[name withheld\] was booked in FIR No.17 of 7.7.2012 under ss.7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at the State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon, with Rs.10,000 of tainted notes recovered from under his mattress, and a departmental enquiry held him guilty in February 2014. The Special Judge, Palwal acquitted him in the criminal trial in October 2014 after complainant \[name withheld\] turned hostile, but the department imposed the pension cut in January 2015 and the DGP dismissed his appeal in July 2015. The Court held the complainant was won over, other witnesses proved the recovery, and preponderance of probabilities sustains the departmental penalty. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> However, other witnesses did prove that when the raid was conducted, the petitioner took out the tainted money of Rs. 10,000/- below his matress and hand over the same to the raiding party.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/180282/suraj-bhan-vs-state-of-haryana/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Haryana Police Inspector vs State of Haryana
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-03-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2017) 03 P&H CK 0127', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/180282/suraj-bhan-vs-state-of-haryana/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writ and upheld 15% pension cut for bribe-taking despite criminal acquittal on hostile complainant.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0019)

## Hansi Man and Others vs State of Haryana and Others (with Court on its own motion vs State of Haryana and Others) (CW-2019-0011)

**Record:** CW-2019-0011 (compiler id CWC-0683); case GAP8-005
**Title:** Hansi Man and Others vs State of Haryana and Others (with Court on its own motion vs State of Haryana and Others)
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Ramendra Jain
**Case number / citation:** CRM-M-19690-2014 with CRM-M-5218-2011
**Judgment:** 2019-02-21 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-02-13 (2011)
**Place:** Hisar, Haryana (district at time: Hissar); city town: Hansi; police station or unit: Police Station City Hansi; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 120-B; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Hansi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. A Hansi man died in custody at Police Station City Hansi on the night of 13 February 2011. The Illaqa Magistrate's Section 176 CrPC inquiry found he was murdered by police in custody rather than a suicide, FIR No.125 under Sections 302/120-B/201 IPC was registered, and a coordinate Bench took suo motu cognizance of press reports; the police cancellation report was later accepted in 2011. On 14 November 2014 the Court directed Rs.5,00,000 interim compensation to the widow and two sons, which the State paid. Disposing of both petitions on 21 February 2019, the Court recorded that the grievance stood redressed by the payment (Rs.2 lakh above the Haryana Victim scale), while noting a prima-facie-suicide view on the FSL report and AIIMS medical opinion. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Consequently, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2014, directed the State Government to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) as interim compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased within a period of two months.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11389892/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Hansi Man and Others vs State of Haryana and Others (with Court on its own motion vs State of Haryana and Others)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-02-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'CRM-M-19690-2014 with CRM-M-5218-2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11389892/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Court-ordered Rs.5 lakh interim compensation paid; final order records grievance redressed (prima-facie-suicide observation noted).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0011)

## Haryana Police Constable vs State of Haryana and others (CW-2021-0014)

**Record:** CW-2021-0014 (compiler id CWC-1075); case GAP3-116-003
**Title:** Haryana Police Constable vs State of Haryana and others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Sudhir Mittal
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 19471 of 2020 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2021-02-11 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-07-14 (2008)
**Place:** Haryana; police station or unit: Haryana Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Punjab Police Rules 1934 r.16.3
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Haryana Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. \[name withheld\] was appointed as a Haryana Police constable on 14 July 2008, FIR No. 189 dated the same day named him as an accused, and he was dismissed on 16 July 2008, with his departmental appeal and revision failing. After his acquittal in the criminal trial on 30 July 2019 he sought reinstatement, which was rejected. The High Court held Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules bars departmental punishment after a judicial acquittal but has no application where dismissal preceded the trial and only reinstatement is sought. The court held no rule provides for reinstatement upon acquittal and dismissed the writ, so the dismissal stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Although the reason for rejection of the request for reinstatement may be erroneous, the order has to be upheld on the ground that there is no Rule providing for reinstatement upon acquittal in a criminal case.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85505449/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Haryana Police Constable vs State of Haryana and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-02-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'CWP No. 19471 of 2020 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85505449/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal of constable named in FIR on enrolment day upheld; no rule mandates reinstatement on acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2021-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0014)

## Union of India & Ors. v. CRPF Constable-Driver (CW-2021-0019)

**Record:** CW-2021-0019 (compiler id CWC-1120); case GAP3-134-002
**Title:** Union of India & Ors. v. CRPF Constable-Driver
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 6723 of 2021 / (2022) 1 SCC 373; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1041
**Judgment:** 2021-11-11 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-09-12 (2003)
**Place:** Panchkula, Haryana; city town: Pinjore; police station or unit: CRPF Group Centre, Pinjore; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** CRPF Act 1949 s.11(1); CRPF Rules 1955 Rule 27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable-Driver, CRPF, 120 Bn (1 in record)
**Victims:** Pinjore resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. On 12 September 2003 the respondent, a CRPF constable-driver attached to the Group Centre and posted at Pinjore, forcibly entered a government doctor chamber demanding attestation of a medical-reimbursement claim and, on refusal, abused and struck the doctor causing facial injury; he then lodged a false complaint alleging the doctor had harassed his wife. Both charges were held proved in a Rule 27 inquiry and removal from service was imposed on 14 July 2004, upheld in departmental appeal and revision. The Delhi High Court upheld the findings but substituted removal with confinement in the quarter-guard plus reinstatement. The Supreme Court held the quantum of punishment lies exclusively with the disciplinary authority, allowed the Union appeal and quashed the High Court judgment, restoring the removal.

> What punishment was required to be imposed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was a matter which fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and the interference made by the High Court is in a cavalier manner while recording the finding of penalty to be disproportionate without taking into consideration the seriousness of the misconduct committed by the respondent which is unpardonable and not sustainable in law.

**Sources (1):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/union-of-india-vs-ex-constable-ram-karan-ll-2021-sc-640-1-403881.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Union of India & Ors. v. CRPF Constable-Driver
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-11-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2022) 1 SCC 373; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1041', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/union-of-india-vs-ex-constable-ram-karan-ll-2021-sc-640-1-403881.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC allowed UOI appeal; removal of CRPF constable-driver for assault on doctor restored.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2021-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0019)

## State of Haryana and Others vs Satish Kumar (CW-2022-0007)

**Record:** CW-2022-0007 (compiler id CWC-0169); case HARYAN-015
**Title:** State of Haryana and Others vs Satish Kumar
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: G. S. Sandhawalia; Vikas Suri
**Case number / citation:** LPA No. 565 of 2020 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2022-05-30 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-01-01 (2014)
**Place:** Rohtak, Haryana; city town: Rohtak; police station or unit: CIA-3, Rohtak; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Satish Kumar (Assistant Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rohtak man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the State appeal in LPA 565 of 2020, set aside the Single Judge reinstatement order of 23 October 2019, and restored the dismissal of ASI Satish Kumar of CIA-3 Rohtak. The Court found he made complainant \[name withheld\] believe he could get his brother dropped from the accused in FIR 454 of 2014, and the Vigilance Bureau arrested him with hands turned pink from the marked money. He was dismissed on 29 October 2015 after an enquiry in which the complainant supported the charge, though he later turned hostile in the criminal trial ending in acquittal. The Bench held the dismissal rested on independent enquiry evidence and the acquittal was no bar, dismissing the employee writ. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is not disputed that the writ petitioner was arrested by the State Vigilance Bureau team and his hands had turned pink and, thus, he had handled the money.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63899068/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** State of Haryana and Others vs Satish Kumar
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-05-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'LPA No. 565 of 2020 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63899068/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC Division Bench allowed State LPA and restored dismissal; Single Judge reinstatement set aside.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0007)

## Haryana Police Exemptee Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Haryana and Others (CW-2022-0016)

**Record:** CW-2022-0016 (compiler id CWC-0168); case HARYAN-014
**Title:** Haryana Police Exemptee Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Haryana and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Jaishree Thakur
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 18431 of 2018 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2022-08-18 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-07-11 (2011)
**Place:** Faridabad, Haryana; city town: Faridabad; police station or unit: Haryana Police, Faridabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Exemptee Assistant Sub-Inspector, Haryana Police, Faridabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Faridabad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed CWP 18431 of 2018 and upheld the dismissal of EASI \[name withheld\] of Faridabad, trapped by the Vigilance Department on 11 July 2011 accepting eight marked Rs 500 notes from complainant \[name withheld\]. The Court found a shadow witness watched the exchange, tainted notes were recovered from his pocket, and his hand-wash turned pink, leading DCP HQ Faridabad to dismiss him on 4 July 2013 after a regular enquiry. Though the Special Judge acquitted him in 2016 after the complainant turned hostile, the Court held the departmental proof stood and Rule 16.3 bar did not apply where witnesses were won over. The appeal, revision and mercy petition rejections were left undisturbed.

> The departmental authorities took into account the fact that there was recovery of tainted currency notes from the petitioner, shadow witness supported the case and the hands of the petitioner when washed with sodium carbonate solution turned pink which would be a positive affirmation of receipt of bribe.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152582255/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Haryana Police Exemptee Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Haryana and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-08-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'CWP No. 18431 of 2018 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152582255/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC judgment verified; trap-proved bribe dismissal upheld despite complainant turning hostile.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0016)

## Arshad v. State of Haryana & Ors. (CW-2025-0013)

**Record:** CW-2025-0013 (compiler id CWC-0666); case SWOTHERM-030
**Title:** Arshad v. State of Haryana & Ors.
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Jagmohan Bansal
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 20467 of 2025 / 2025:PHHC:089339
**Judgment:** 2025-07-21 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2023-01-12 (2023)
**Place:** Haryana; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Arshad (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Haryana Police Constable Arshad, who joined in April 2012, proceeded on one week's leave on 12 January 2023 and never returned, remaining absent for over 300 days; his justification included treatment for black magic by a tantrik. Suspended in September 2023, he boycotted the enquiry, was found guilty ex parte, and was dismissed on 20 June 2024 after a record of 40-plus prior absences, with his appeal and revision failing. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held armed forces cannot retain an indisciplined member, declined to interfere on proportionality for a habitual offender, and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner was concededly part of disciplined force and was bound to strictly follow the rules and regulations. Armed Forces cannot retain any indisciplined member.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com](https://livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/cwp20467202521072025finalorder-612503.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-police-officer-absented-from-duty-to-visit-tantarik-upholds-dismissal-says-armed-forces-cant-retain-indiscipline-member-299079); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/08/04/ph-hc-armed-forces-cannot-retain-indisciplined-member/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Arshad v. State of Haryana & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-07-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2025:PHHC:089339', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/cwp20467202521072025finalorder-612503.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-police-officer-absented-from-duty-to-visit-tantarik-upholds-dismissal-says-armed-forces-cant-retain-indiscipline-member-299079', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/08/04/ph-hc-armed-forces-cannot-retain-indisciplined-member/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC dismissed writ, upheld dismissal of constable absent 300+ days visiting tantrik; habitual offender.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0013)

## Haryana Police ex-Constable and others vs State of Haryana and Others (CW-2025-0047)

**Record:** CW-2025-0047 (compiler id CWC-1076); case GAP3-117-001
**Title:** Haryana Police ex-Constable and others vs State of Haryana and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Jagmohan Bansal
**Case number / citation:** CWP-14996-2025 (common order also disposes CWP-23420-2025)
**Judgment:** 2025-09-23 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sirsa, Haryana; city town: Sirsa; police station or unit: Haryana Police (Sirsa); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 323; IPC 342; IPC 167; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** ex-Constable, Haryana Police; ex-Sub-Inspector, Haryana Police; ex-Head Constable, Haryana Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. \[name withheld\] and colleagues were implicated in FIR No. 62 dated 25 March 2001 and convicted on 26 October 2012 under Sections 323, 342, 167 and 34 IPC with three years rigorous imprisonment, being acquitted of the murder charge, and were dismissed on 16 November 2012. The High Court held that no punishment other than dismissal can be awarded where an enrolled police officer is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month under Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules. The court rejected the plea for conversion of dismissal into compulsory retirement on parity with a co-accused and dismissed the writ, so the dismissal stands while the criminal appeals remain pending.

> The respondent cannot award punishment other than dismissal from service where an enrolled Police officer has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month.

**Sources (2):** [s3.courtbook.in](https://s3.courtbook.in/2025/09/Krishan-Kumar-@-Krishan-Lal-vs.-State-of-Haryana-and-Others.pdf); [courtbook.in](https://courtbook.in/posts/punjab-and-haryana-high-court-clarifies-scope-of-police-dismissals-and-review-powers-under-service-rules)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 37
**display title redacted:** Haryana Police ex-Constable and others vs State of Haryana and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-09-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'CWP-14996-2025 (common order also disposes CWP-23420-2025)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://s3.courtbook.in/2025/09/Krishan-Kumar-@-Krishan-Lal-vs.-State-of-Haryana-and-Others.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://courtbook.in/posts/punjab-and-haryana-high-court-clarifies-scope-of-police-dismissals-and-review-powers-under-service-rules', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal of constable convicted (3 years RI) in 2001 Sirsa custodial-violence case sustained; parity plea rejected.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0047](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0047)

## Haryana Police Constable vs State of Haryana and others (CW-2025-0028)

**Record:** CW-2025-0028 (compiler id CWC-0165); case HARYAN-011
**Title:** Haryana Police Constable vs State of Haryana and others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Jagmohan Bansal
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Petition No. 13740 of 2004 (O&M) / (2025) 12 P&H CK 1872
**Judgment:** 2025-12-04 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-01-01 (2003)
**Place:** Haryana; police station or unit: Haryana Police (prisoner escort/guard duty); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 226; Constitution Art 227
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Haryana Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Constable's writ petition and upheld his dismissal from service for inaction on prisoner-guard duty. Part of a three-man guard holding two undertrial prisoners in safe custody, he possessed a carbine but did not fire when assailants attacked, letting them escape after killing one undertrial and seriously injuring the other; the enquiry officer found him guilty of inaction and he was dismissed on 28 July 2003, with his departmental appeal and revision also failing. The Court held the enquiry procedurally sound with unassailable factual findings in writ jurisdiction, noting also the 22-year delay since dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner was found guilty for inaction. One prisoner was murdered and another injured who were in the safe custody of petitioner. He did not even try to open gunfire at assailants.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1217900/dhan-raj-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Haryana Police Constable vs State of Haryana and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-12-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2025) 12 P&H CK 1872', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1217900/dhan-raj-vs-state-of-haryana-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC judgment verified on CourtKutchehry; dismissal for guard-duty inaction upheld, writ dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0028)

## Punjab State v. \[name withheld\] (CW-1954-0005)

**Record:** CW-1954-0005 (compiler id CWC-1055); case GAP3-109-002
**Title:** Punjab State v. \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Punjab High Court; judges: Kapur
**Case number / citation:** Regular Second Appeal No. 891 of 1951 / I.L.R. Punjab Series, Vol. VIII, p. 934
**Judgment:** 1954-11-29 (1954, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1944-01-01 (1944)
**Place:** Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (district at time: Simla (Punjab, pre-reorganisation)); city town: Shimla; police station or unit: Punjab Police, Simla (Censor Department posting); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Police Act 1861 s.7; GOI Act 1935 s.243
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (officiating Assistant Sub-Inspector), Punjab Police, Simla (Censor Department posting) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Shimla woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Punjab High Court sustained the dismissal of Head Constable (officiating ASI) \[name withheld\] of Simla, who was dismissed on 25 January 1944 after a departmental enquiry found he had misused his wartime posting in the Censor Department to extract and keep private letters and attempt to blackmail the young woman addressee, for which a trap had caught him. The court held subordinate police were governed by s.243 (not s.240(3)) of the Government of India Act, 1935, that breach of procedural rules gives no right of action, and that both courts below took an erroneous view of law. It allowed the State's second appeal, set aside the decrees declaring the dismissal void, and dismissed the policeman's suit with costs. Simla was then in Punjab and is now Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I would therefore allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the Courts below and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.

**Sources (1):** [highcourtchd.gov.in](https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/Regular%20Second%20Appeal%20No._891_1951.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Punjab State v. \[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1954-11-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'I.L.R. Punjab Series, Vol. VIII, p. 934', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/Regular%20Second%20Appeal%20No._891_1951.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified from official HC ILR scan; dismissal for blackmail-type misconduct sustained. Court name is the 1954 official name (predecessor of Punjab and Haryana HC).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1954-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1954-0005)

## State of Himachal Pradesh vs Rampur, village Gharat Nala Police Head Constable and others (CW-1979-0002)

**Record:** CW-1979-0002 (compiler id CWC-0055); case CHANDI-001
**Title:** State of Himachal Pradesh vs Rampur, village Gharat Nala Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** High Court of Himachal Pradesh; judges: D.B. Lal; T.R. Handa
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1971 / (1980) ShimLC 73
**Judgment:** 1979-03-01 (1979, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1969-06-20 (1969)
**Place:** Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (district at time: Mahasu); city town: Rampur, village Gharat Nala; police station or unit: Rampur police party (SHO Ranjit Singh); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 348
**Officers (gated display forms):** Prem Chand (Head Constable); Narsingh Dutt (Constable) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Rampur, village Gharat Nala man; Rampur, village Gharat Nala man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Division Bench) allowed the State appeal against the acquittal of seven Rampur policemen by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahasu. On the night of June 20-21, 1969, a police party led by SHO detained a Rampur, village Gharat Nala man and a Rampur, village Gharat Nala man at a shop in village Gharat Nala while investigating a theft, beating them to extort confessions; a Rampur, village Gharat Nala man died the next morning at Bathara. Holding that Head Constable Prem Chand and Constable Narsingh Dutt had voluntarily caused hurt to extort a confession and wrongfully confined a Rampur, village Gharat Nala man overnight, the Court convicted both under Sections 330 and 348 IPC, sentencing each to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 330 and one year under Section 348 to run concurrently, and directed them to surrender forthwith, while dismissing the appeal against the remaining five accused.

> Prem Chand, Head Constable, and Narsingh Dutt, Constable, the two accused, have gone beyond their powers and have committed the offences under Sections 330 and 348 of the I.P. Code.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/242044/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-shri-ranjit-singh-and-others/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=709791620000&title=state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-ranjit-singh)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** State of Himachal Pradesh vs Rampur, village Gharat Nala Police Head Constable and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1979-03-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Himachal Pradesh', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Himachal Pradesh entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1980) ShimLC 73', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/242044/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-shri-ranjit-singh-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=709791620000&title=state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-ranjit-singh', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HP HC set aside acquittal and convicted Head Constable Prem Chand and Constable Narsingh Dutt under IPC 330/348 for custodial torture of a Rampur, village Gharat Nala man
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-1979-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1979-0002)

## Rajgarh Police Investigating Head Constable and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CW-1995-0009)

**Record:** CW-1995-0009 (compiler id CWC-0906); case GAP2-57-002
**Title:** Rajgarh Police Investigating Head Constable and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Madan Mohan Punchhi; K. Jayachandra Reddy
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 108 and 335 of 1987 / AIR 1995 SC 1965
**Judgment:** 1995-01-10 (1995, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh; city town: Rajgarh; police station or unit: Rajgarh Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 451; IPC 342; IPC 376; IPC 376 r/w 109
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating Head Constable, Rajgarh Police Station; Constable, Rajgarh Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Rajgarh woman, age 19 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 7 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Around midnight, \[name withheld\] (Investigating Head Constable) and \[name withheld\] (Constable) of Rajgarh Police Station forcibly took a 19-year-old woman and her husband from a house at Rajgarh to the police station on the false pretext of a wireless message from Chandigarh, confined them in separate rooms, and \[name withheld\] raped her while \[name withheld\] guarded the husband. The Sessions Court acquitted both, but the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversed the acquittal, sentencing \[name withheld\] to 7 years RI and \[name withheld\] to 2 years RI for abetment. The Supreme Court held the prosecutrix reliable and corroborated, found \[name withheld\]'s conduct consistent with aiding and abetting, and dismissed both appeals, directing the appellants to surrender forthwith.

> This case relates to a custodial rape. The Court of Session acquitted the two appellants herein of the crime but the High Court recorded convictions under more than one heads, besides rape and sentenced substantively \[name withheld\] appellant to seven years rigorous imprisonment and \[name withheld\] appellant to two years rigorous imprisonment which has given rise to these appeals.

**Sources (3):** [legal-tools.org](https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/a3164f/pdf/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083421/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/678253/ram-kumar-and-nain-singh-vs-state-of-hp/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 1
**display title redacted:** Rajgarh Police Investigating Head Constable and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1995 SC 1965', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1995-01-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1995 SC 1965', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/a3164f/pdf/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083421/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/678253/ram-kumar-and-nain-singh-vs-state-of-hp/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified (Legal Tools PDF + Indian Kanoon); custodial-rape convictions of two policemen upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1995-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1995-0009)

## Himachal Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (in charge) and others vs State of Himachal Pradesh (CW-1995-0010)

**Record:** CW-1995-0010 (compiler id CWC-1102); case GAP3-127-010
**Title:** Himachal Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (in charge) and others vs State of Himachal Pradesh
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Sujata V. Manohar; M. M. Punchhi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 1989 with appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 965 of 1989 and 193 of 1990 / AIR 1995 SC 1941; 1995 CriLJ 3223; (1995) 4 SCC 1
**Judgment:** 1995-02-07 (1995, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1975-08-30 (1975)
**Place:** Shimla, Himachal Pradesh; city town: Shimla (Kasumpti); police station or unit: Police Post Kasumpti, Shimla; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 217; IPC 330; IPC 348; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (in charge), Police Post Kasumpti, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh Police; Constable, Police Post Kasumpti, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh Police; Constable, Police Post Kasumpti, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Shimla man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court on 7 February 1995 dismissed on merit the appeals of ASI and Constable of Police Post Kasumpti, Shimla, upholding their convictions under Sections 217, 330 and 348 read with Section 34 IPC. The Court found that a Shimla man had been wrongfully confined at the police post from 30 August to 12 September 1975 and beaten with sticks to extort a confession in a theft case, and that his dead body was found on 17 September 1975. It held the constable's complicity proved beyond doubt and the ASI answerable as post in-charge acting with tacit consent and connivance. A third constable's appeal abated on his death; the Court left the convictions and sentences undisturbed and ordered no compensation.

> The complicity of \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] in the commission of the crime thus stands proved beyond doubt.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113523/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/673635/anup-singh-and-others-appellant-hash-state-of-himachal-pradesh-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Himachal Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (in charge) and others vs State of Himachal Pradesh
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1995 SC 1941; 1995 CriLJ 3223; (1995) 4 SCC 1', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1995-02-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1995 SC 1941; 1995 CriLJ 3223; (1995) 4 SCC 1', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113523/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/673635/anup-singh-and-others-appellant-hash-state-of-himachal-pradesh-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC dismissed appeals on merit, upholding IPC 217/330/348 convictions of Kasumpti ASI and constable for custodial confinement and torture.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1995-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1995-0010)

## Manali Man And Ors. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors (CW-1997-0004)

**Record:** CW-1997-0004 (compiler id CWC-0058); case CHANDI-004
**Title:** Manali Man And Ors. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors
**Court:** High Court of Himachal Pradesh; judges: M. Srinivasan; Lokeshwar Singh Panta
**Case number / citation:** 1998 ACJ 632
**Judgment:** 1997-03-18 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-06-05 (1993)
**Place:** Kullu, Himachal Pradesh; city town: Manali; police station or unit: Manali Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 22(2); IPC 223
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Manali Police Station; Assistant Sub-Inspector (Additional SHO), Manali Police Station; Constable No. 145, Manali Police Station; Constable No. 1019, Manali Police Station; Constable No. 1037, Manali Police Station (5 in record)
**Victims:** Manali man, age 22 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Division Bench) allowed the writ petition of the family of a Manali man (22), arrested on June 5, 1993 by Manali police in FIR No. 110 of 1993 and never produced before a Magistrate; his decomposed body was recovered from Pandoh Dam on June 26, 1993. The family alleged he was beaten to death on the night of June 5/6 and thrown in the Beas, while police claimed escape from custody and suicide. The Court held police failed to prove escape, violated Articles 22(2) and 21, and were negligent in their custodial duty, awarding Rs. 1,00,000 interim compensation (Rs. 25,000 to widow \[name withheld\], Rs. 15,000 to mother \[name withheld\], Rs. 60,000 in fixed deposit for three minor daughters), clarifying observations would not affect the pending criminal case No. 77-1/1994 (State v. \[name withheld\] under Section 223 IPC) against police officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> There can be no doubt whatever that the police officials were negligent and failed to perform their duties enjoined on them by law.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63109/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/241010/pdf/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Manali Man And Ors. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-03-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Himachal Pradesh', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Himachal Pradesh recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1998 ACJ 632', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63109/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/241010/pdf/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HP HC held Manali police negligent in custody of a Manali man (22), found Art. 22(2) violated, awarded Rs. 1 lakh interim compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0004)

## Mandi Police personnel v. State of H.P. & Anr. (CW-2007-0010)

**Record:** CW-2007-0010 (compiler id CWC-0484); case SWCUSTOD-016
**Title:** Mandi Police personnel v. State of H.P. & Anr.
**Court:** Himachal Pradesh High Court; judges: Surjit Singh; Kuldip Singh
**Case number / citation:** 2008 Cri LJ 1350
**Judgment:** 2007-08-30 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-08-30 (1994)
**Place:** Mandi, Himachal Pradesh; city town: Mandi; police station or unit: PS Sadar, Mandi; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 376(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, PS Sadar, Mandi (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mandi woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 10 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the in-charge of PS Sadar Mandi, who summoned a village woman to the station on 30 August 1994, bolted the upper-storey room and raped her after threatening to implicate her family in a poisoning case he was investigating. The Court refused leniency since he took undue advantage of his position as station in-charge, sustaining 10 years RI with the Rs 20,000 fine payable to the prosecutrix. The appeal was dismissed. The prosecutrix had secured justice only through a Section 156(3) application after even the SP failed to help. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The result of the above discussion, judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi on 18/19-8-2003, is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1147113/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/891569/gulzar-muhamad-vs-state-h-p-anr)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 35
**display title redacted:** Mandi Police personnel v. State of H.P. & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2008 Cri LJ 1350', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2007-08-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Himachal Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2008 Cri LJ 1350', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1147113/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/891569/gulzar-muhamad-vs-state-h-p-anr', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld 376(2) conviction (10 yrs RI + fine) of PS in-charge; appeal dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0010)

## Kandaghat Man vs State Of H.P. And Ors (CW-2007-0013)

**Record:** CW-2007-0013 (compiler id CWC-0059); case CHANDI-005
**Title:** Kandaghat Man vs State Of H.P. And Ors
**Court:** High Court of Himachal Pradesh; judges: Dev Darshan Sud
**Case number / citation:** 2008 ACJ 1684; 2008(1) ShimLC 355
**Judgment:** 2007-10-31 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-01-08 (2001)
**Place:** Solan, Himachal Pradesh; city town: Kandaghat; police station or unit: Police Post Sairy / Police Station Kandaghat; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (3 in record)
**Victims:** Kandaghat man, age 28 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the compensation plea of Santosh Kumari, widow of a Kandaghat man (28), arrested on January 8, 2001 in excise FIR No. 4 of 2001 and found unconscious with head, shoulder, eye and genital injuries while being escorted by Police Post Sairy staff; he died at IGMC Shimla on January 9, 2001. Police claimed he jumped from a running bus near Boileauganj while escaping, while the family alleged custodial torture, delayed treatment and a post-mortem held two days after death. The Court found no compliance with the mandatory D.K. Basu safeguards, noted the SDM enquiry accepted police carelessness and that the scrotum and testicle injuries were unexplained, and directed the petitioner be paid Rs. 2,00,000 (non-recoverable, adjustable against any future civil award), leaving her free to approach courts or the State Human Rights Commission for further relief. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The injuries on the scrotum and testicles of the deceased have not been explained.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1431596/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Kandaghat Man vs State Of H.P. And Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-10-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Himachal Pradesh', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Himachal Pradesh recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2008 ACJ 1684; 2008(1) ShimLC 355', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1431596/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HP HC found HP police violated D.K. Basu safeguards in custody of a Kandaghat man (28) who died with unexplained injuries, awarded Rs. 2 lakh compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0013)

## District Police Constable No. 265 v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. with \[name withheld\] v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CW-2026-0033)

**Record:** CW-2026-0033 (compiler id CWC-0758); case SWOTHERM-008; aliases: CWC-0062; CWC-1456
**Title:** District Police Constable No. 265 v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. with \[name withheld\] v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
**Court:** Himachal Pradesh High Court; judges: Ajay Mohan Goel
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 6783 of 2026 with CWP No. 2077 of 2026 / 2026:HHC:31438
**Judgment:** 2026-07-29 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh; police station or unit: Police Station Balh; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** NDPS Act s.20; NDPS Act s.21; NDPS Act s.25; NDPS Act s.29; Constitution Art. 311(2)(a)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable No. 265, 4th India Reserve Battalion (IRBn), Jangalberi, Hamirpur; Constable No. 710, District Police Shimla (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the dismissal from service of two police constables criminally convicted under the NDPS Act: \[name withheld\], caught with 1003 grams of charas and sentenced by the Special Judge, Mandi to three years' imprisonment with fine, and \[name withheld\], convicted under Sections 21, 25 and 29. The Court held the DGP's invocation of clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) lawful and the pendency of criminal appeals no bar to dismissal without inquiry. It found dismissal neither excessive nor disproportionate for police personnel tasked with checking NDPS offences, observing the protectors of law had become its violators. Both writ petitions were dismissed on 29 July 2026. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Accordingly, in light of the findings returned herein above, as this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders under challenge, in terms whereof the petitioners have been dismissed from service, the present writ petitions being devoid of any merit are dismissed.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/22/gaurav-verma-695668.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/himachal-pradesh-high-court/hp-high-court-upholds-dismissal-police-constables-convicted-ndps-act-547050); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27966799/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 40
**display title redacted:** District Police Constable No. 265 v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. with \[name withheld\] v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-07-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Himachal Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2026:HHC:31438', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/22/gaurav-verma-695668.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/himachal-pradesh-high-court/hp-high-court-upholds-dismissal-police-constables-convicted-ndps-act-547050', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27966799/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HP HC upheld dismissal of two NDPS-convicted police constables under Art.311(2)(a); writs dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0033)

## Qazigund Man v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. (CW-1985-0002)

**Record:** CW-1985-0002 (compiler id CWC-0333); case SUPREM-005
**Title:** Qazigund Man v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: O. Chinnappa Reddy; V. Khalid
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1060 of 1985 / (1985) 4 SCC 677
**Judgment:** 1985-11-22 (1985, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1985-09-10 (1985)
**Place:** Kulgam, Jammu and Kashmir (district at time: Anantnag); city town: Qazigund; police station or unit: Qazigund Police Station / Pacca Danga Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 22(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police, Anantnag Police; Station House Officer, Pacca Danga Police Station, Jammu; Inspector, District Police Lines, Anantnag; Inspector General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir Police (4 in record)
**Victims:** Qazigund man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court of India held that Member of Legislative Assembly a Qazigund man was arrested deliberately and mala fide by Jammu and Kashmir police at Qazigund on 10 September 1985 to prevent him from attending the Legislative Assembly session. The police unlawfully detained him until 14 September without production before a magistrate, obtaining fraudulent remand orders at magistrates' private residences without his physical presence. The Court held that police functionaries flouted constitutional mandates in gross violation of Articles 21 and 22(2). Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32, the Supreme Court directed the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay Rs 50,000 as exemplary compensation to the petitioner. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The police officers, of course, acted deliberately and mala fide and the Magistrate and the Sub Judge aided them either by colluding with them or by their casual attitude.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1227505/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Qazigund Man v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1985-11-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1985) 4 SCC 677', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1227505/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court held J&K police acted deliberately and mala fide in illegally detaining MLA a Qazigund man, awarding Rs 50,000 exemplary compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1985-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1985-0002)

## Srinagar Man vs The State and Others (CW-2002-0023)

**Record:** CW-2002-0023 (compiler id CWC-0862); case GAP2-41-006
**Title:** Srinagar Man vs The State and Others
**Court:** Jammu and Kashmir High Court; judges: Syed Bashir-Ud-Din
**Case number / citation:** Misc. Petition No. 197 of 1995 (u/s 491 CrPC) / 2002 CriLJ 3904
**Judgment:** 2002-05-14 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-07-09 (1995)
**Place:** Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir; city town: Srinagar; police station or unit: Police Station CIK, Srinagar; 41st Bn BSF; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC s.491; Arms Act 1959 s.25; J&K PSA 1978 s.8; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police, CID, Counter-Insurgency Kashmir (CIK), Srinagar; Police personnel, 41st Battalion, Border Security Force
**Victims:** Srinagar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court disposed of a 1995 habeas corpus petition concerning a Srinagar man, picked up by the 41st Bn BSF on 09.07.1995 during a Maharaja Gunj crackdown and booked at Police Station CIK, thereafter untraceable. Adopting the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Srinagar) enquiry, the court disbelieved both the BSF escape story and the State's denial of custody. It held the subject disappeared while in the physical custody of respondent No. 3 (SP, CID-CIK), termed him the main and chief culprit, and awarded Rs 1.5 lakh compensation with liberty to recover from the responsible officers. It also ordered registration of a criminal case and time-bound investigation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The only conclusion to be drawn is that a Srinagar man has disappeared while in physical custody of the respondent No. 3, the main and chief culprit in the matter.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1562983/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/993901/mushtaq-ahmed-chacha-appellant-hash-the-state-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Srinagar Man vs The State and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-05-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jammu and Kashmir High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2002 CriLJ 3904', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1562983/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/993901/mushtaq-ahmed-chacha-appellant-hash-the-state-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Mirror text verified: Rs 1.5L compensation for custodial disappearance; criminal case ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0023)

## Lethpora, Awantipora Man vs The State (CW-2003-0022)

**Record:** CW-2003-0022 (compiler id CWC-0863); case GAP2-41-007
**Title:** Lethpora, Awantipora Man vs The State
**Court:** Jammu and Kashmir High Court; judges: Syed Bashir-Ud-Din
**Case number / citation:** O.W.P. No. 263 of 2001 / 2004 CriLJ 1706
**Judgment:** 2003-10-09 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-09-01 (1997)
**Place:** Pulwama, Jammu and Kashmir; city town: Lethpora, Awantipora; police station or unit: STF/SOG camp, Lethpora, Awantipora; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police (Operations), STF/SOG, Awantipora; Sub-Inspector, SOG, Lethpora; Constable No. 602, JKAP with SOG Lethpora; Police personnel, SOG party, Lethpora; SHO, Soura (then), Soura Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Lethpora, Awantipora man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court records the following account. A Lethpora, Awantipora man, a cameraman with the University of Kashmir, was picked up from the university campus in September 1997 by an STF/SOG team led by SP (Operations) \[name withheld\] and never seen again. The State Human Rights Commission, after a full enquiry with cross-examination, held the arrest proved and the police story of escape during a Nowhatta arms-recovery operation fabricated, recommending Rs. 5 lakh interim relief, a criminal case and disciplinary action. The High Court adopted the SHRC findings, held the case a custodial disappearance in breach of Article 21, and awarded Rs. 2 lakh public-law compensation (unless the State paid the SHRC-recommended Rs. 5 lakh), leaving recovery from the responsible officers to the State. It also directed registration of a criminal case against the erring officials, investigation by an SSP-rank officer within four months, and simultaneous disciplinary proceedings. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The police version is wholly unacceptable and one tailored to serve interests of the police personnel involved in the offence of custodial disappearance of the subject.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/964711/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/992182/abdul-rashid-beigh-appellant-hash-the-state-respondent/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/901744/abdul-rashid-beigh-vs-state)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Lethpora, Awantipora Man vs The State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-10-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jammu and Kashmir High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2004 CriLJ 1706', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/964711/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/992182/abdul-rashid-beigh-appellant-hash-the-state-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/901744/abdul-rashid-beigh-vs-state', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Custodial disappearance proved; compensation plus criminal/disciplinary directions.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0022)

## Jammu Man and Another v. State of Punjab and Others (CW-2011-0008)

**Record:** CW-2011-0008 (compiler id CWC-0069); case CHANDI-015
**Title:** Jammu Man and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Jora Singh
**Case number / citation:** CRWP No. 883 of 2003
**Judgment:** 2011-05-06 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-06-21 (2003)
**Place:** Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir; city town: Jammu; police station or unit: Police Station Gangyal, Jammu; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 344; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Trainee SHO, Police Station Gangyal, Jammu (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jammu man, age 26; Jammu boy, age 15; Jammu boy, age 15; Jammu man; Jammu man, age 20; Jammu boy, age 17; Jammu boy, age 15; Jammu man (8 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of a habeas corpus petition over eight Punjab youths picked up by a J&K police party led by DSP as suspected Kala Kachha gang members, holding a man (26) was kept confined illegally and tortured at PS Gangyal, Jammu. Arrested from Amritsar on 21 June 2003 without production before any Magistrate, he died on 3 July 2003 with 41 injuries including electric-shock marks; death was by haemorrhage and shock. The Court rejected the police version of release and death by illness, noting absent arrest memos and afterthought roznamcha entries, and awarded Rs 5 lakh against the State of J&K, recoverable from the DSP. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Keeping in view 41 injuries on the person of deceased and the way deceased was tortured in police custody, State of Jammu and Kashmir, is directed to pay Rs. 5 lacs as compensation to the wife and the children of deceased with liberty to recover Rs. 5 lacs from Sh. \[name withheld\], DSP, Trainee SHO, Police Station Gangyal- respondent No. 7.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80798392/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** n/a (operative para, judgment p.32; paras unnumbered)
**display title redacted:** Jammu Man and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-05-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'CRWP No. 883 of 2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80798392/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** 41-injury custodial torture-death at PS Gangyal; Rs 5L against J&K recoverable from DSP.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 26, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': 15, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 15-year-old boy'}; {'age': 15, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 15-year-old boy'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': 20, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': 17, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 17-year-old boy'}; {'age': 15, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 15-year-old boy'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': None}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0008)

## Ganderbal Man vs Union of India and Others (CW-2011-0043)

**Record:** CW-2011-0043 (compiler id CWC-1310); case GAP3-94-001
**Title:** Ganderbal Man vs Union of India and Others
**Court:** Jammu and Kashmir High Court; bench: Srinagar; judges: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
**Case number / citation:** OWP No. 352 of 2007 / (2011) 4 JKJ 327
**Judgment:** 2011-10-22 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-01-01 (2002)
**Place:** Ganderbal, Jammu and Kashmir; city town: Ganderbal; police station or unit: Special Operations Group, Ganderbal; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** J&K SRO 43
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Operations Group, Ganderbal; Special Police Officer, Special Operations Group, Ganderbal (2 in record)
**Victims:** Ganderbal man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Ganderbal man was arrested by SOG personnel at Ganderbal and killed in custody, his body handed to relatives the next day; local police refused to register an FIR until the High Court ordered it (FIR No. 107/2002). The court recorded the State's admission that its own investigation had established the involvement of DySP \[name withheld\] and SPO \[name withheld\] in the death, and that the criminal case was later closed as untraced after both officers died. The court held the family had lost its sole bread earner, awarded Rs 3 lakh compensation saddled on the State Government payable within three months, and directed the State to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment under SRO 43 with age relaxation. It clarified the award would not bar the family from seeking further compensation through appropriate remedy. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Admittedly in terms of the report of Investigating Officer, respondents have admitted that investigation was conducted and it was established during such investigation that two Police Officers, \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] were involved in the death of the deceased and thus have deprived the sole bread earner to the writ petitioner and his family.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195667152/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/990593/parweeza-begum-appellant-hash-union-of-india-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Ganderbal Man vs Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-10-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jammu and Kashmir High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2011) 4 JKJ 327', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195667152/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/990593/parweeza-begum-appellant-hash-union-of-india-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC recorded State's admission that two police officers killed the detainee in custody; Rs 3 lakh compensation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0043](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0043)

## Katra Woman and Others v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir and Others (CW-2016-0005)

**Record:** CW-2016-0005 (compiler id CWC-0070); case SWDISPRO-004; aliases: CWC-0595
**Title:** Katra Woman and Others v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: A. K. Sikri; R. K. Agrawal
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 118 of 2007 / 2016 SCC OnLine SC 814
**Judgment:** 2016-08-12 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-08-07 (2007)
**Place:** Reasi, Jammu and Kashmir; city town: Katra; police station or unit: Jammu and Kashmir Police (Katra dispersal force); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Katra woman (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 4 lakh (Rs 4,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court held Jammu and Kashmir Police personnel misused power and violated the fundamental rights of three petitioners during the 7 August 2007 dispersal near Katra of about 2,000 Jammu migrant protesters marching to Delhi. The Court found initial force justified as the agitation turned violent, but held police continued the lathi charge beyond limits and kept beating all three petitioners even after overpowering and virtually apprehending them. Finding the petitioners partly to blame, the Court declined criminal action and a special investigation, granting only compensation of Rs 2 lakh to petitioner1 and Rs 1 lakh each to petitioner2 and 3. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On the other hand, even the police personnel continued the use of force beyond limits after they had controlled the mob. In the process, they continued their lathi charge. They continued to beat up all the three petitioners even after overpowering them.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139222628/); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/08/13/unfortunate-that-the-use-of-force-by-police-to-control-hooliganism-and-vandalism-by-the-protestors-results-in-public-anger-against-the-police/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/right-peaceful-protest-fundamental-right-sc); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/688570/anita-thakur-ors-appellant-hash-govt-of-jk-ors-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Protest policing', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Katra Woman and Others v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-08-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 400,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2016 SCC OnLine SC 814', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139222628/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/08/13/unfortunate-that-the-use-of-force-by-police-to-control-hooliganism-and-vandalism-by-the-protestors-results-in-public-anger-against-the-police/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/right-peaceful-protest-fundamental-right-sc', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/688570/anita-thakur-ors-appellant-hash-govt-of-jk-ors-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Excessive post-control lathi charge held proved; Rs 4L total compensation; no criminal action.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2016-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0005)

## CRPF Constable/GD v. Union of India & Ors. (CW-2023-0045)

**Record:** CW-2023-0045 (compiler id CWC-1197); case GAP3-44-002
**Title:** CRPF Constable/GD v. Union of India & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Suresh Kumar Kait; Neena Bansal Krishna
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) 1883/2010 / 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 549
**Judgment:** 2023-07-04 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-12-07 (2008)
**Place:** Budgam, Jammu and Kashmir; city town: Waripora; police station or unit: D Company, 176 Bn CRPF, Waripora (Budgam); force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** CRPF Act 1949 s.11(1); CRPF Rules 1955 r.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable/GD, D Company, 176 Battalion, CRPF, Waripora (1 in record)
**Victims:** Waripora resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. CRPF Constable/GD \[name withheld\] of D Company, 176 Battalion at Waripora (Budgam), while undergoing line-custody punishment, unauthorisedly purchased and consumed an overdose of liquor on 07.12.2008, entered the subordinate officers' mess drunk, seized a loaded carbine and pointed it at SI/GD a Waripora resident The enquiry officer found him a habitual offender frequently caught drunk on duty, and the Commandant dismissed him from service on 11.02.2009, affirmed on appeal and revision. The Delhi High Court held rejection of his casual leave gave him no licence to consume liquor and rebel against the competent authority, found the dismissal just and proper, and dismissed his writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The misconduct committed by the petitioner leaves no scope for leniency towards him.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/judgementphp-2-479503.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-dismissal-crpf-constable-consumption-of-liquor-on-duty-231857)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** CRPF Constable/GD v. Union of India & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-07-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2023 LiveLaw (Del) 549', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/judgementphp-2-479503.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-dismissal-crpf-constable-consumption-of-liquor-on-duty-231857', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** CRPF constable's dismissal for drunkenness on duty and pointing loaded carbine at superior upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0045](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0045)

## Phallian Mandal, Satwari Man And Another vs State Of J&K And Others (CW-2023-0021)

**Record:** CW-2023-0021 (compiler id CWC-0057); case CHANDI-003
**Title:** Phallian Mandal, Satwari Man And Another vs State Of J&K And Others
**Court:** Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (verified as High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh); bench: Jammu; judges: Rajnesh Oswal
**Case number / citation:** OWP No. 791/2009 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2023-08-04 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-02-17 (2007)
**Place:** Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir; city town: Phallian Mandal (Makwal), Satwari; police station or unit: Police Post Phallian Mandal (Makwal), Police Station Satwari; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** RPC 302; Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** In-charge and personnel on duty, Police Post Phallian Mandal (Makwal), PS Satwari (1 in record)
**Victims:** Phallian Mandal, Satwari man, age 18 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 8 lakh (Rs 8,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu awarded compensation to the parents of 18-year-old a Phallian Mandal, Satwari man, picked up from home on February 17, 2007 by Police Post Phallian Mandal staff and found unconscious with visible injury marks at the post within about 90 minutes, later declared dead at hospital. A magisterial enquiry by the Additional District Development Commissioner Jammu held it a custodial death prima facie against the post's personnel; the Government accepted the report, paid Rs. 1 lakh ex gratia and registered FIR No. 201/2007 under Section 302 RPC at PS Satwari. Holding the State estopped from denying custodial death, the Court computed Rs. 9,00,000 total on Motor Vehicles Act principles and, adjusting the ex gratia already paid, directed payment of Rs. 8,00,000 with 6% interest from filing of the writ petition within two months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Once the Government has accepted the death as 'custodial death' and has paid sum of Rs. 1 lac as ex-gratia, the respondents are estopped from denying the death of the victim in police custody.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106453139/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Phallian Mandal, Satwari Man And Another vs State Of J&K And Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-08-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 800,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'OWP No. 791/2009 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106453139/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** J&K HC (Jammu) held 18-year-old a Phallian Mandal, Satwari man died in police custody at PP Phallian Mandal and awarded Rs. 8 lakh compensation (plus Rs. 1 lakh ex gratia already paid).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0021)

## J&K Police Constable v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (CW-2024-0024)

**Record:** CW-2024-0024 (compiler id CWC-0643); case SWOTHERM-007
**Title:** J&K Police Constable v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
**Court:** Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (verified as High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh); bench: Jammu; judges: Sanjeev Kumar; Puneet Gupta
**Case number / citation:** CRA No. 17 of 2010 / 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 14
**Judgment:** 2024-12-31 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-09-29 (2001)
**Place:** Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** POTA 2002 s.3(4)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, J&K Police, District Udhampur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court records the following account. Constable of District Udhampur police absented without authorisation from 29 September to 11 November 2001; on rejoining, police seized militants' photographs and film negatives from him, and investigation established he was harbouring Mahore-area militants to spread militancy, culminating in a confessional statement before the SSP Poonch under s.32 POTA. The POTA Designated Court (Jammu) convicted him under s.3(4) POTA in July 2010 with 3 years imprisonment plus Rs.1,000 fine. A Division Bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta dismissed his appeal, holding a s.32 POTA confession must be of sterling value and corroborated as a matter of prudence, upheld the conviction and sentence, cancelled his bail bonds, and ordered surrender within ten days.

> For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113743568/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/doc-20250129-wa0005-584258.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jammu-kashmir/jammu-and-kashmir-high-court-confession-must-be-of-sterling-value-corroborated-court-upholds-conviction-under-pota-282527)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** J&K Police Constable v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 14', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-12-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 14', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113743568/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/doc-20250129-wa0005-584258.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jammu-kashmir/jammu-and-kashmir-high-court-confession-must-be-of-sterling-value-corroborated-court-upholds-conviction-under-pota-282527', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** J&K HC dismissed POTA appeal, upholding constable's 3-year conviction for harbouring militants; text verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0024)

## Kupwara Man vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors (CW-2025-0012)

**Record:** CW-2025-0012 (compiler id CWC-0759); case SUPREM-031; aliases: CWC-0056
**Title:** Kupwara Man vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 13751-13752 of 2023 / 2025 INSC 876; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 732; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1491
**Judgment:** 2025-07-21 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2023-02-20 (2023)
**Place:** Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir; city town: Kupwara; police station or unit: Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC), Kupwara / SSP Office Kupwara; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; IPC 309
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kupwara; Sub-Inspector (Belt No. 108/KP), In-charge, Police Post Tad, Karnah; Various, Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara (3 in record)
**Victims:** Kupwara man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50 lakh (Rs 50,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of J&K police constable, posted at District Police Headquarters Baramulla, who was illegally detained at the Joint Interrogation Centre, Kupwara from February 20 to 26, 2023 and subjected to custodial torture including amputation of his testicles, pepper sprinkled on his genitalia and electric shocks, leaving him comatose and surgically castrated. Holding the Article 21 violation evident and egregious as established through medical records, the Court quashed as mala fide and fabricated the counter-FIR No. 32 of 2023 under Section 309 IPC lodged against the victim to shield guilty officers. It directed the CBI to register an RC within 7 days, arrest responsible officials within one month, complete investigation in 90 days and probe systemic issues at JIC Kupwara, set aside the High Court order dated September 18, 2023, and ordered the Union Territory to pay Rs. 50,00,000 interim compensation recoverable from guilty officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The injuries caused to the appellant during his illegal detention, particularly the complete mutilation of his genitalia, use of pepper/chilly powder and electric shocks on his genitalia, are grave reminders of the inhuman torture meted out to the appellant while detaining him illegally.

**Sources (9):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/khursheed-ahmad-chohan-v-union-territory-of-jammu-and-kashmirwatermark-1730699.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-orders-rs-50-lakh-compensation-to-jk-police-officer-who-suffered-custodial-torture-directs-cbi-probe-298229); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/khursheed-ahmad-chohan-v-union-territory-of-jammu-and-kashmir-2025-insc-876-brutal-custodial-torture-on-police-constable-1585675); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173545196/); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/amp/news-updates/sc-directs-cbi-probe-into-custodial-torture-castration-of-jk-police-constable-awards-rs-50-lakh-compensation-1513710); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/07/22/supreme-court-awards-50lakh-compensation-police-constable-custodial-torture-victim-legal-news/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/687e79ca00bbbc60eb40b4c6); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-orders-cbi-probe-into-custodial-torture-of-jk-constable); [lawstreet.co](https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/sc-orders-rs-50-lakh-compensation-to-j-and-k-constable-over-custodial-torture-directs-cbi-probe)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 36
**display title redacted:** Kupwara Man vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-07-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 5,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2025 INSC 876; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 732; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1491', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/khursheed-ahmad-chohan-v-union-territory-of-jammu-and-kashmirwatermark-1730699.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-orders-rs-50-lakh-compensation-to-jk-police-officer-who-suffered-custodial-torture-directs-cbi-probe-298229', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/khursheed-ahmad-chohan-v-union-territory-of-jammu-and-kashmir-2025-insc-876-brutal-custodial-torture-on-police-constable-1585675', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173545196/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/amp/news-updates/sc-directs-cbi-probe-into-custodial-torture-castration-of-jk-police-constable-awards-rs-50-lakh-compensation-1513710', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/07/22/supreme-court-awards-50lakh-compensation-police-constable-custodial-torture-victim-legal-news/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/687e79ca00bbbc60eb40b4c6', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-orders-cbi-probe-into-custodial-torture-of-jk-constable', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/sc-orders-rs-50-lakh-compensation-to-j-and-k-constable-over-custodial-torture-directs-cbi-probe', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court held J&K constable suffered brutal custodial torture at JIC Kupwara, awarded Rs. 50 lakh interim compensation and ordered CBI probe.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0012)

## State of J&K v. Kupwara Police Station House Officer and others (CW-2025-0016)

**Record:** CW-2025-0016 (compiler id CWC-0061); case SWOTHERM-023
**Title:** State of J&K v. Kupwara Police Station House Officer and others
**Court:** Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (verified as High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh); judges: Sanjeev Kumar; Sanjay Parihar
**Case number / citation:** CRAA No. 12 of 2011 / 2025:JKLHC-SGR:242
**Judgment:** 2025-08-30 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-05-12 (2003)
**Place:** Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir; city town: Kupwara; police station or unit: Sogam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** RPC 302; RPC 120-B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Sogam Police Station, Kupwara (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kupwara resident; Kupwara resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court records the following account. On 12 May 2003, a Jaish-e-Mohammed fidayeen attacked police and CRPF personnel near the SBI branch in Kupwara town, killing two CRPF men and injuring six. Investigation showed that then-SHO \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] had ferried the attacker from Sogam to Kupwara in an official Tata 407 police vehicle and planted him at the attack site. The Sessions Judge, Kupwara, acquitted Wani in January 2011. The High Court held the acquittal perverse, found the SHO proved as a conspirator in the murder, sentenced him to life imprisonment under Sections 302 read with 120-B RPC, and directed surrender before the trial court, while confirming the co-accused's acquittal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, we deem it appropriate to hold him guilty for having committed offence of murder in conspiracy with respondent No. 1 (now deceased) and sentence him to imprisonment for life prescribed under Section 302 RPC. He shall surrender to custody of the trial Court and the latter shall draw formal order of sentence and commit him to custody, so as to undergo the sentence of imprisonment of life.

**Sources (3):** [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/pdf_upload/state-of-jk-v-gh-rasool-wani-anr-2075518.pdf); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/jk-and-ladakh-high-court-convicts-ex-sho-ghulam-rasool-for-aiding-2003-kupwara-fidayeen-attack-1518136); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3610190-ex-police-officer-sentenced-for-fidayeen-attack-justice-served-decades-later)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 38
**display title redacted:** State of J&K v. Kupwara Police Station House Officer and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-08-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2025:JKLHC-SGR:242', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/pdf_upload/state-of-jk-v-gh-rasool-wani-anr-2075518.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/jk-and-ladakh-high-court-convicts-ex-sho-ghulam-rasool-for-aiding-2003-kupwara-fidayeen-attack-1518136', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3610190-ex-police-officer-sentenced-for-fidayeen-attack-justice-served-decades-later', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** J&K HC reversed SHO's acquittal and convicted him of murder-conspiracy for aiding 2003 fidayeen attack; life term.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2025-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0016)

## State of J&K vs Sogam Police Station House Officer (then) and Others (CW-2025-0045)

**Record:** CW-2025-0045 (compiler id CWC-0760); case CHANDI-007
**Title:** State of J&K vs Sogam Police Station House Officer (then) and Others
**Court:** Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (verified as High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh); bench: Srinagar; judges: Sanjeev Kumar; Sanjay Parihar
**Case number / citation:** CRAA No. 12/2011 / 2025:JKLHC-SGR:242
**Judgment:** 2025-08-30 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-05-12 (2003)
**Place:** Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir; city town: Sogam; police station or unit: Police Station Sogam, Kupwara; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** RPC 120B; RPC 302; RPC 109
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer (then), Police Station Sogam, Kupwara (1 in record)
**Victims:** Sogam man; Sogam man (8 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar (Sanjay Parihar, J.; Sanjeev Kumar, J. concurring) partly allowed the State's acquittal appeal against the 2011 Sessions Judge Kupwara judgment in FIR No. 83/2003. Then-SHO \[name withheld\]. \[name withheld\] had ferried Pakistani Jaish-e-Mohammad fidayeen Mohd. Ibrahim in the official police vehicle from Sogam to Kupwara on 12 May 2003, misrepresenting him as an SOG operative; the militant, wearing a stolen constable's uniform, attacked a police/CRPF convoy near SBI Kupwara, killing two CRPF jawans of 113 Bn and injuring six personnel before being neutralised. Holding the trial court's acquittal perverse in ignoring clinching evidence, the High Court convicted Wani of murder by conspiracy and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, directing surrender to the trial court; the co-accused \[name withheld\]'s acquittal was upheld. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, we deem it appropriate to hold him guilty for having committed offence of murder in conspiracy with respondent No. 1 (now deceased) and sentence him to imprisonment for life prescribed under Section 302 RPC.

**Sources (3):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/state-of-jk-vs-mohd-ibrahim-1742800.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/jammu-ladakh-high-court/state-of-jk-v-mohd-ibrahim-2025jklhc242-jammu-kashmir-ladakh-high-court-kupwara-sho-terror-conspiracy-case-1590849); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/jk-and-ladakh-high-court-convicts-ex-sho-ghulam-rasool-for-aiding-2003-kupwara-fidayeen-attack-1518136)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 38
**display title redacted:** State of J&K vs Sogam Police Station House Officer (then) and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-08-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2025:JKLHC-SGR:242', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/state-of-jk-vs-mohd-ibrahim-1742800.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/jammu-ladakh-high-court/state-of-jk-v-mohd-ibrahim-2025jklhc242-jammu-kashmir-ladakh-high-court-kupwara-sho-terror-conspiracy-case-1590849', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/jk-and-ladakh-high-court-convicts-ex-sho-ghulam-rasool-for-aiding-2003-kupwara-fidayeen-attack-1518136', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: ex-SHO convicted of murder-conspiracy, life imprisonment on State appeal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2025-0045](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0045)

## UT of J&K & Ors. v. \[name withheld\] (CW-2025-0030)

**Record:** CW-2025-0030 (compiler id CWC-0642); case SWOTHERM-006
**Title:** UT of J&K & Ors. v. \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (verified as High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh); bench: Srinagar; judges: Sanjeev Kumar; Sanjay Parihar
**Case number / citation:** LPA No. 27 of 2022 / 2025:JKLHC-SGR:356-DB
**Judgment:** 2025-12-18 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2016-05-07 (2016)
**Place:** Kulgam, Jammu and Kashmir; city town: Adjin; police station or unit: Minority picket, Adjin, Kulgam; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, J&K Police, minority picket, Adjin, Kulgam (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court records the following account. Constable (J&K Police, appointed 1992), posted with the constabulary guard at the minority picket at Adjin, Kulgam, failed to fire a single round when militants attacked on the night of 7/8 May 2016, surrendering service weapons to them. After inquiry, SP Kulgam dismissed him on 13 October 2016. A Single Judge quashed the dismissal in October 2019 on grounds including inquiry by an allegedly incompetent officer. A Division Bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar allowed the UT's appeal, holding the inquiry was by a competent authority with natural justice scrupulously followed, that surrender without firing is cowardice bringing moral disgrace, and that dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate, restoring the dismissal.

> The failure of the Police Guards on duty to retaliate an attack by the militants and surrendering their weapons without firing a single round is a serious act of cowardice bringing moral disgrace to the police force as a whole.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/doc-20251225-wa0001-642846.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/jammu-ladakh-high-court/2025jkhcsgr356-ut-of-j-k-v-bashir-ahmad-mir-1602450); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jammu-kashmir/jammu-and-kashmir-high-court-surrendering-weapons-without-firing-a-single-round-is-cowardice-brings-moral-disgrace-to-police-force-restores-dismissal-of-constable-for-failing-to-repel-militant-attack-514461)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** UT of J&K & Ors. v. \[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-12-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2025:JKLHC-SGR:356-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/doc-20251225-wa0001-642846.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/jammu-ladakh-high-court/2025jkhcsgr356-ut-of-j-k-v-bashir-ahmad-mir-1602450', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jammu-kashmir/jammu-and-kashmir-high-court-surrendering-weapons-without-firing-a-single-round-is-cowardice-brings-moral-disgrace-to-police-force-restores-dismissal-of-constable-for-failing-to-repel-militant-attack-514461', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** J&K HC allowed State appeal, restoring dismissal of constable who surrendered weapons; judgment verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0030)

## State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. J&K Police Driver Constable (CW-2026-0024)

**Record:** CW-2026-0024 (compiler id CWC-0063); case CHANDI-009; aliases: CWC-0956
**Title:** State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. J&K Police Driver Constable
**Court:** Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (verified as High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh); bench: Srinagar; judges: Sanjeev Kumar; Sanjay Parihar
**Case number / citation:** LPAW No. 268/2011 / 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 237
**Judgment:** 2026-05-30 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-01-01 (2004)
**Place:** Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir; city town: Srinagar; police station or unit: J&K Police Department; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** J&K Constitution s.126(2)(c); Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Driver Constable, J&K Police Department (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

A Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh allowed the administration's appeal and restored the 2007 dismissal of Driver Constable, setting aside the Single Judge's 2011 order. The constable had been arrested in 2004 for contact with a Pakistani militant and arranging his hideout, with arms and grenades recovered, and was dismissed after the Cabinet was satisfied that holding an enquiry would endanger witnesses. The Court held that abundant contemporaneous material justified dispensing with the enquiry under Section 126(2)(c) of the then J&K Constitution and that the writ court had acted in a slipshod manner. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The respondent was one such pawn in the hands of the enemy who had been persuaded to act not only against his employer but also against his country for extraneous reasons and considerations. Not only had he established contacts with a Pakistani militant, but he had also arranged a hideout for him.

**Sources (3):** [images.assettype.com](https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2026-06-02/sgtzo0rd/State_of_JK_Vs_Ghulam_Mohd_Tantray.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jammu-kashmir/jammu-and-kashmir-high-court-enemy-infiltrated-government-through-employees-to-disintegrate-nation-jk-hc-upholds-dismissal-of-police-constable-who-sheltered-pakistani-militant-possessed-grenades-536508); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/jammu-kashmir-high-court-restores-dismissal-of-policeman-accused-of-militant-links)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. J&K Police Driver Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Duplicate record CW-2026-0050 (same court, LPAW No. 268/2011, judgment of 30 May 2026) merged into this record; its sources are kept here and its URL redirects here.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-05-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 237', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2026-06-02/sgtzo0rd/State_of_JK_Vs_Ghulam_Mohd_Tantray.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jammu-kashmir/jammu-and-kashmir-high-court-enemy-infiltrated-government-through-employees-to-disintegrate-nation-jk-hc-upholds-dismissal-of-police-constable-who-sheltered-pakistani-militant-possessed-grenades-536508', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/jammu-kashmir-high-court-restores-dismissal-of-policeman-accused-of-militant-links', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Militant-link dismissal restored by DB; operative order verified from judgment PDF.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0024)

## State of J&K and Others vs J&K Armed Police Head Constable/Cashier (CW-2026-0054)

**Record:** CW-2026-0054 (compiler id CWC-1315); case GAP3-99-001
**Title:** State of J&K and Others vs J&K Armed Police Head Constable/Cashier
**Court:** Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (verified as High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh); judges: Sanjeev Kumar; Mohd. Yousuf Wani
**Case number / citation:** LPAW No. 93 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2026-08-11 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-02-14 (2006)
**Place:** Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir; city town: Jammu; police station or unit: 8th Battalion, J&K Armed Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** RPC 409; J&K Police Rules Rule 359
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable/Cashier, 8th Battalion, J&K Armed Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court records the following account. Head Constable/\[name withheld\] of the 8th Battalion, J&K Armed Police was arrested in an embezzlement case (FIR No. 46/2005) and, after release on bail in February 2006, never reported back despite repeated notices, leading to dismissal in May 2007 with retrospective effect. A Single Judge had set the dismissal aside and ordered reinstatement with liberty for a fresh inquiry. The Division Bench held the unauthorised-absence charge stood proved and undefended, so no breach of Rule 359 or natural justice arose, but agreed dismissal could not operate retrospectively. Applying R. Jeevaratnam, it severed the retrospective part, sustained the dismissal from 11 May 2007, set aside the writ-court judgment and allowed the State appeal.

> For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the order of dismissal impugned in the writ petition as valid from the date of the order, i.e., 11.05.2007.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/26/state-of-jk-vs-abdul-sattar-lone-696416.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jammu-kashmir/retrospective-effect-of-dismissal-order-is-severable-jkl-high-court-restores-constables-dismissal-in-90-lakh-embezzlement-case-547509)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** State of J&K and Others vs J&K Armed Police Head Constable/Cashier
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'LPAW No. 93 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/26/state-of-jk-vs-abdul-sattar-lone-696416.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jammu-kashmir/retrospective-effect-of-dismissal-order-is-severable-jkl-high-court-restores-constables-dismissal-in-90-lakh-embezzlement-case-547509', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Head Constable's dismissal for prolonged unauthorised absence upheld from date of order; retrospective part severed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0054](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0054)

## Kandra Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others vs The State (CW-1954-0003)

**Record:** CW-1954-0003 (compiler id CWC-0073); case GAP14-001
**Title:** Kandra Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others vs The State
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Kamla Sahai
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 365 and 376 of 1953 / AIR 1955 Pat 317
**Judgment:** 1954-08-12 (1954, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1952-10-10 (1952)
**Place:** Seraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand (district at time: Singhbhum); city town: Kandra; police station or unit: Kandra Police Outpost, Singhbhum; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; IPC 161/109
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Kandra Police Outpost, Singhbhum; Constable, Kandra Police Outpost, Singhbhum (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (28 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. On 10 October 1952, the ASI and constable of Kandra outpost threatened about 28 villagers of Bikaneepur with prosecution over a witchcraft-related sacrifice and extracted illegal gratification at Rs.2/8 per head, settled after haggling down from Rs.500. The court believed the prosecution witnesses and held \[name withheld\] received illegal gratification from several persons, rejecting sanction and evidentiary objections. It dismissed \[name withheld\]'s appeal (1 year RI under Section 161 IPC) and dismissed Yasin Khan's appeal with his conviction altered to abetment under Section 161/109 IPC, maintaining his 6-month sentence.

> The result is that Criminal Appeal No. 365 filed by appellant \[name withheld\] is dismissed and Criminal Appeal No. 376 filed by appellant Yasin Khan is dismissed with the modification that his conviction is altered to one u/s 161/109, Penal Code.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173056/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/746831/nil-madhab-patnaik-and-another-vs-the-state/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Kandra Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others vs The State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Patna High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Patna High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1955 Pat 317', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1954-08-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1955 Pat 317', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173056/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/746831/nil-madhab-patnaik-and-another-vs-the-state/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Single-judge judgment verified; ASI + constable bribery convictions sustained (1 yr / 6 mo RI).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1954-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1954-0003)

## Jamshedpur Man and Another v. State of Bihar and Others (CW-1991-0004)

**Record:** CW-1991-0004 (compiler id CWC-0970); case GAP3-100-003
**Title:** Jamshedpur Man and Another v. State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; bench: Ranchi; judges: Satyabrata Sinha
**Case number / citation:** Criminal W.J.C. No. 87 of 1990 (R) / 1992(1) BLJR 60
**Judgment:** 1991-03-18 (1991, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-05-25 (1990)
**Place:** Purbi Singhbhum, Jharkhand (district at time: Singhbhum, Bihar); city town: Jamshedpur; police station or unit: Sidhgora Police Station, Jamshedpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Bihar Police Manual r.241; CrPC (arrest/handcuffing safeguards incl. duty to inform grounds of arrest); IPC 380; IPC 307 (as recorded in Sidhgora P.S. Case Nos. 40-41 of 1990)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Sidhgora Police Station, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 3); Police personnel, Sidhgora Police Station, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 4) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Jamshedpur man, age 35; Jamshedpur man, age 47 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court (Ranchi bench) partly allowed the writ of two TISCO Assistant Security Officers detained at Sidhgora police station on 25 May 1990. The court held there was no reasonable cause for their detention, for refusing them bail, or for handcuffing and roping them in public view outside the magistrate's court, finding respondent No. 4's action smacked of malice. It condemned the officers' conduct as a gross violation of fundamental rights. The court directed the State to pay Rs 20,000 as exemplary costs and to hold an inquiry fixing individual liability of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (or others), with recovery from those found liable. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> there was no reasonable cause for the petitioners being detained in police custody nor as there \[sic\] any cause for handcuffing of the petitioners and roping either by Respondent No. 4 or by the escorting party

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1296325/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=711991470000&Title=ANJANI-KUMAR-SINHA-Vs.-STATE-OF-BIHAR)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 54
**display title redacted:** Jamshedpur Man and Another v. State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1991-03-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 20,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1992(1) BLJR 60', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1296325/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=711991470000&Title=ANJANI-KUMAR-SINHA-Vs.-STATE-OF-BIHAR', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ allowed; Rs 20,000 exemplary costs for illegal detention and handcuffing/roping without cause.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1991-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1991-0004)

## Palamu Man v. Union of India and Others (CW-1999-0013)

**Record:** CW-1999-0013 (compiler id CWC-0968); case GAP3-100-001
**Title:** Palamu Man v. Union of India and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; bench: Ranchi; judges: M.Y. Eqbal
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 2437 of 1998 (R) / (2000) 1 PLJR 672
**Judgment:** 1999-11-11 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-07-18 (1998)
**Place:** Palamu, Jharkhand (district at time: Palamau, Bihar); police station or unit: Panki Police Station (Pipratand outpost), Sadar B Circle, Daltonganj; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 22(1); IPC 220; IPC 330; IPC 331; CrPC 82; CrPC 83
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sadar B Circle, Daltonganj, Bihar Police; Inspector, Bihar Police (Panki P.S.); Sub-Inspector, Bihar Police (Panki P.S.); Police personnel, CRPF personnel with Assistant Commandant (raid party)
**Victims:** Palamu man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Patna High Court (Ranchi bench) allowed the widow's writ, holding that her husband \[name withheld\] died in custody on 18 July 1998 from a brutal assault by a police party led by DySP \[name withheld\]. The court found that the joint Bihar police-BMP-CRPF party had raided the house without warrant, beaten the deceased with dandas and rifle butts, and failed to follow the D.K. Basu safeguards, rejecting the police claim that he was a wanted MCC activist injured while fleeing. It directed the CBI to hold a thorough enquiry and institute criminal prosecution against the officers involved in causing the death by torture. The court ordered Rs 2 lakh compensation to the widow, to be paid equally by the Central and State Governments within two months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is prima facie evident that the brutal and inhuman act of the police personnels has resulted in the death of the deceased.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/772163/mostt-ahulash-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-others/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e12e4e607dba3896622fb7)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Palamu Man v. Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1999-11-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2000) 1 PLJR 672', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/772163/mostt-ahulash-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e12e4e607dba3896622fb7', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ allowed; Rs 2 lakh compensation plus CBI enquiry and prosecution for custodial death by police torture.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1999-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0013)

## Ranchi Man vs State of Bihar and Ors. (CW-2003-0005)

**Record:** CW-2003-0005 (compiler id CWC-0171); case JHARKH-001
**Title:** Ranchi Man vs State of Bihar and Ors.
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Tapen Sen
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 3088 of 1996(R) / 2003 CriLJ 3803
**Judgment:** 2003-06-02 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-07-27 (1990)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand; city town: Ranchi; police station or unit: Jagannathpur Police Station, Ranchi; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226; IPC 395; IPC 412; Arms Act
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Jagannathpur Police Station, Ranchi (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ranchi man, age 28 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. A Ranchi man @ a Ranchi man was apprehended along with two others by Jagannathpur police on 27 July 1990 following an alleged dacoity, and was brutally assaulted with rifle butts and iron rods in a police jeep, resulting in his custodial death. The trial court convicted the accused police personnel in Sessions Trial No. 551 of 1993. On a writ petition by the deceased's widow, the Jharkhand High Court held that the factum of brutal custodial killing in violation of Article 21 was shocking beyond words and directed the State to pay Rs. 10,00,000 in compensation to the widow and three minor children. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Consequently, it was held that the charges levelled against all the nine police personnels were proved and they were held guilty and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/520221/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122009310/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Ranchi Man vs State of Bihar and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-06-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2003 CriLJ 3803', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/520221/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122009310/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court awarded Rs 10 lakh compensation to widow and children for brutal custodial death of a Ranchi man @ a Ranchi man by Jagannathpur police.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0005)

## Daltonganj Man v. State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2003-0019)

**Record:** CW-2003-0019 (compiler id CWC-0971); case GAP3-101-001
**Title:** Daltonganj Man v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Tapen Sen
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 4640 of 2002 / AIR 2004 Jhar 66
**Judgment:** 2003-08-12 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-12-07 (2001)
**Place:** Palamu, Jharkhand; city town: Daltonganj; police station or unit: Daltonganj Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Daltonganj Police Station patrolling party, Palamu
**Victims:** Daltonganj man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Jharkhand High Court allowed the father's writ after his son \[name withheld\] was killed on 7 December 2001 when a suspected parcel bomb exploded at Daltonganj. The court found the Daltonganj police patrolling party negligent: instead of summoning explosive experts, the Inspector had the civilian open the lunch-box device, killing him on the spot and injuring police personnel. It held this was not gross negligence but a carefree attitude, distinguishing the custodial-death award in Bahlen Balmuchu. The court ordered Rs 1 lakh compensation plus transposition of the deceased's STD booth licence to one brother and employment for the other. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> even if it is not a case of gross negligence, it can at best termed to be a case of a carefree and/or non chalant attitude on the part of the members of the police.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/478595/dwarika-prasad-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent-1/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Daltonganj Man v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-08-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 2004 Jhar 66', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/478595/dwarika-prasad-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent-1/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ allowed; Rs 1 lakh plus licence transposition and employment for police negligence causing blast death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0019)

## Jharkhand Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2004-0011)

**Record:** CW-2004-0011 (compiler id CWC-0976); case GAP3-101-006
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Tapen Sen
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (S) No. 6666 of 2002 / (2004) 3 JCR 130
**Judgment:** 2004-04-29 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-01-18 (2002)
**Place:** East Singhbhum, Jharkhand; city town: Jamshedpur; police station or unit: Jamshedpur Sadar Court escort; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 224; IPC 225; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Police, Jamshedpur Sadar Court (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

On 18 January 2002 constable, escorting three accused including murder-accused \[name withheld\] from jail to the Jamshedpur Sadar Court, left Singh untied and unhandcuffed, allowing him to remove his handcuffs and escape; Bistupur P.S. Case No. 19/2002 under Sections 224, 225 and 120B IPC followed. Departmental Proceeding No. 31 of 2002 ended in his discharge/dismissal on 21 June 2002, confirmed on appeal on 5 November 2002. The Jharkhand High Court (Tapen Sen, J.) held the inquiry evidence established gross negligence in escort duty, that a writ court cannot substitute findings of fact, and that dismissal for letting a serious offender escape was not disproportionate. The writ petition was dismissed on 29 April 2004. Later proceedings: on 13 February 2007, the Jharkhand High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In this case it was the duty and responsibility of the Constable to safely bring back a serious offender to the Court Lockup but because of his negligence and carelessness, which amounts to gross dereliction of duty, the said criminal managed to escape from the clutches of law.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/472104/umeshwar-upadhyay-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent/); (2004) 04 JH CK 0039
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**final outcome url:** https://indiankanoon.org/doc/533404/
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2004-04-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2004) 3 JCR 130', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2007-02-13', 'action_type': 'Order set aside', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'Later proceedings: on 13 February 2007, the Jharkhand High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand.', 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Conviction not standing', 'source': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/533404/', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'date': '2007-02-13', 'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/533404/', 'outcome': 'conviction_set_aside'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/472104/umeshwar-upadhyay-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2004) 04 JH CK 0039', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** overturned
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified; dismissal for letting undertrial escape from escort upheld as gross dereliction.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2004-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0011)

## Bihar Military Police Constable vs State of Bihar and Others (CW-2004-0012)

**Record:** CW-2004-0012 (compiler id CWC-0977); case GAP3-101-007
**Title:** Bihar Military Police Constable vs State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Amareshwar Sahay
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 1844 of 2000 (P) / 2004 (3) JCR 511 Jhr
**Judgment:** 2004-05-18 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-05-08 (1996)
**Place:** Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; city town: Hazaribagh; police station or unit: Bihar Military Police-3, Govindpur, Dhanbad (on deputation at D.A.V. School, Hazaribagh); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bihar Military Police-3, Govindpur, Dhanbad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Hazaribagh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. On 8 May 1996, while on deputation at D.A.V. School, Hazaribagh, during the Lok Sabha elections, BMP constable abused and pushed down constable and later that night assaulted the sleeping constable on the chest with boots, hospitalising him till 13 May 1996 (station diary No. 290/96, Sadar Police Station). The enquiry officer gave benefit of doubt, but the Commandant disagreed and dismissed him on 7 April 1998; the appellate authority confirmed guilt while reducing dismissal to compulsory retirement on 3 November 1998. The Jharkhand High Court (Amareshwar Sahay, J.) held the disciplinary authority had stated reasons for disagreement in the show-cause notice with opportunity to reply, had carefully considered the record including eyewitness evidence, and that a writ court cannot substitute findings of fact. The writ application was dismissed on 18 May 2004, leaving compulsory retirement undisturbed; the 1996 incident pre-dates Jharkhand's formation, hence the State of Bihar respondent. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The disciplinary authority has very carefully considered the materials on the record then had come to a definite finding of fact holding the petitioner guilty.

**Sources (1):** [legalindia.com](https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/bijendra-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-through-home-on-18-may-2004)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Bihar Military Police Constable vs State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2004-05-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2004 (3) JCR 511 Jhr', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/bijendra-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-through-home-on-18-may-2004', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified; compulsory retirement for assault on fellow constable upheld (Bihar-era incident, Jharkhand HC decision).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2004-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0012)

## CISF Constable vs Union of India and Others (CW-2005-0015)

**Record:** CW-2005-0015 (compiler id CWC-0986); case GAP3-102-008
**Title:** CISF Constable vs Union of India and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: M.Y. Eqbal
**Case number / citation:** Writ petition against IG CISF (Eastern Sector) revision order (number not stated in judgment text) / \[2005(3) JCR 381 (JHR)\]; 2005 AIR Jhar HCR 2426; (2005) 3 JLJR 697
**Judgment:** 2005-07-25 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-02-11 (1992)
**Place:** Jharkhand; police station or unit: CISF ('B' Plant, Watch Tower No. III); force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** CISF Act 1968 s.18
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CISF (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jharkhand resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (M.Y. Eqbal J.) on 25 July 2005 dismissed the writ petition of CISF constable (No. 8017761) against the rejection of his revision by the Inspector General, CISF Eastern Sector. The court recorded the same history as the later appeal round: dozing on watch-tower duty on 11/12 February 1992 and assaulting Inspector, both charges proved, dismissal on 12 October 1992, and the Division Bench in LPA No. 646 of 2002 restoring dismissal while allowing a revision on quantum only. The court held that dismissal on proved misconduct cannot be interfered with on sympathetic grounds unless illogical, procedurally improper or shocking to conscience. Declining to interfere, it dismissed the writ petition; a further appeal in the same matter was dismissed on 8 March 2006 (recorded as CWC-0993).

> I am not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1240312/); \[2005(3)JCR381(JHR)\]; 2005 AIR-Jhar HCR 2426; (2005) 3 JLJR 697
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** CISF Constable vs Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-07-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '\[2005(3) JCR 381 (JHR)\]; 2005 AIR Jhar HCR 2426; (2005) 3 JLJR 697', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1240312/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '\[2005(3)JCR381(JHR)\]', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2005 AIR-Jhar HCR 2426', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2005) 3 JLJR 697', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ against revision dismissed; same \[name withheld\] dismissal as CWC-0993 (earlier round) upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2005-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0015)

## Pratappur Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2005-0020)

**Record:** CW-2005-0020 (compiler id CWC-0985); case GAP3-102-007
**Title:** Pratappur Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: M.Y. Eqbal
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 6077 of 2005 / \[2006(1) JCR 309 (JHR)\]
**Judgment:** 2005-12-23 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-04-18 (2002)
**Place:** Chatra, Jharkhand; city town: Pratappur; police station or unit: JAP-7, Hazaribagh (posted Pratappur, Chatra); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, JAP-7, Hazaribagh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (M.Y. Eqbal J.) on 23 December 2005 dismissed the writ petition of JAP-7 constable against his dismissal for habitual unauthorised absence. The court recorded that he absconded from 18 April to 29 July 2002 (102 days), covering it with a story of kidnapping by Naxalites that neither his superior officers nor the Chatra police had reported, supported by a private practitioner's certificate of mental-illness treatment, and that he had three earlier major punishments for absconding for up to 186 days before absconding again in December 2002. The court held the kidnapping story was hatched to cover wilful absence and that he was not fit to be retained in police service. It declared the dismissal order perfectly legal and valid and dismissed the writ petition, so the dismissal stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the petitioner is not at all fit to be retained in the police service. The impugned order of dismissal from service is perfectly legal and valid which needs no interference.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/524457/); \[2006(1)JCR309(JHR)\]
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Pratappur Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-12-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '\[2006(1) JCR 309 (JHR)\]', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/524457/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '\[2006(1)JCR309(JHR)\]', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; JAP constable's dismissal for habitual absence with fabricated kidnapping story upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2005-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0020)

## CISF Constable vs Union of India and Others (CW-2006-0022)

**Record:** CW-2006-0022 (compiler id CWC-0984); case GAP3-102-006
**Title:** CISF Constable vs Union of India and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
**Case number / citation:** Appeal against revisional rejection (number not stated); see CWJC No. 11947 of 1997 (R), LPA No. 646 of 2002 / \[2007(3) JCR 449 (JHR)\]
**Judgment:** 2006-03-08 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-02-11 (1992)
**Place:** Jharkhand; police station or unit: CISF ('B' Plant, Watch Tower No. III); force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CISF (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jharkhand resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (S.J. Mukhopadhaya J.) on 8 March 2006 dismissed the appeal of CISF constable against his dismissal from service. The court recorded that he was found sitting and dozing before a small fire while on 'C'-shift watch-tower duty on the night of 11/12 February 1992 and assaulted Inspector when caught, that both charges were proved in a departmental enquiry, and that he was dismissed on 12 October 1992. The court noted the Division Bench had already upheld the punishment in LPA No. 646 of 2002, remitting only the question of quantum to the revisional authority, which found dismissal proportionate. Agreeing that the order was appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the charges, the court dismissed the appeal, so the dismissal stands.

> the respondents have passed appropriate order, proportionate to the gravity of charges and thus called for no interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1656513/); \[2007(3)JCR449(JHR)\]
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** CISF Constable vs Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-03-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '\[2007(3) JCR 449 (JHR)\]', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1656513/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '\[2007(3)JCR449(JHR)\]', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Appeal dismissed; CISF constable's dismissal for sleeping on duty and assaulting superior upheld (posting plant not stated).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0022)

## Dhanbad Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2006-0024)

**Record:** CW-2006-0024 (compiler id CWC-0982); case GAP3-102-004
**Title:** Dhanbad Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: S.J. Mukhopadhaya; Permod Kohli
**Case number / citation:** LPA against order dated 12.07.2005 in W.P.(S) No. 3220 of 2005 (LPA number not stated in judgment text) / \[2006(4) JCR 301 (JHR)\]
**Judgment:** 2006-05-19 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-11-01 (2000)
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; city town: Dhanbad; police station or unit: Sadar Court, Dhanbad; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Sadar Court, Dhanbad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Division Bench (S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Permod Kohli JJ.) on 19 May 2006 dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal of constable of Sadar Court, Dhanbad, against his dismissal for habitual absconding from duty since November 2000. The court recorded that an ex parte departmental enquiry had held him guilty after he failed to participate, and that the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad had dismissed him on 27 July 2003 considering his reply, the enquiry report and about eleven prior instances of absconding. The court held the dismissal was not contrary to Rule 826 of the Bihar Police Manual Vol. 1 nor disproportionate, and that no subsistence-allowance illegality occurred since he never stayed at headquarters during suspension. It found no ground to interfere with the dismissal or the Single Judge's order dismissing his writ petition, and dismissed the appeal.

> We find no ground to be made out to interfere with the order of dismissal nor any ground has been made out to interfere with the order, passed by the learned Single Judge. There being no merit, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/747511/); \[2006(4)JCR301(JHR)\]
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Dhanbad Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-05-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '\[2006(4) JCR 301 (JHR)\]', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/747511/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '\[2006(4)JCR301(JHR)\]', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** LPA dismissed; constable's dismissal for habitual absconding upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0024)

## CISF Constable vs Union of India and Others (CW-2006-0025)

**Record:** CW-2006-0025 (compiler id CWC-0981); case GAP3-102-003
**Title:** CISF Constable vs Union of India and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: R.K. Merathia
**Case number / citation:** CWJC No. 2094 of 1997 (R) / 2007(1) BLJR 354; \[2006(4) JCR 419 (JHR)\]
**Judgment:** 2006-07-25 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-04-29 (1995)
**Place:** Bokaro, Jharkhand; city town: Bokaro; police station or unit: CISF Unit, Bokaro Steel Plant; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CISF Unit, Bokaro Steel Plant (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (R.K. Merathia J.) on 25 July 2006 dismissed the writ petition of CISF constable of the Bokaro Steel Plant unit, challenging his dismissal from service. The court recorded that he had been found guilty in a departmental enquiry of conspiring to commit theft inside the plant on 29 April 1995, absenting himself from the 'G' Coy barracks in the early hours of 30 April 1995, and attempting to steal undertaking property from Shed No. C-22. The court found that he was caught red-handed in civil dress outside the perimeter wall at about 1:30 a.m., that documents had been duly furnished to him, and that the disciplinary authority had rejected his pleas by a well-reasoned order. It held the punishment of dismissal was not harsh for a man whose duty was to protect the company from theft, and dismissed the writ petition, so the dismissal stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The punishment also cannot be said to be harsh in view of the aforesaid charges proved against the petitioner whose duty was to protect the company from theft.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/592174/); 2007(1)BLJR354; \[2006(4)JCR419(JHR)\]
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** CISF Constable vs Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-07-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2007(1) BLJR 354; \[2006(4) JCR 419 (JHR)\]', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/592174/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2007(1)BLJR354', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '\[2006(4)JCR419(JHR)\]', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writ; CISF constable's dismissal for theft conspiracy and dereliction upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0025)

## CISF Constable and others vs Union of India and Others (CW-2006-0028)

**Record:** CW-2006-0028 (compiler id CWC-0983); case GAP3-102-005
**Title:** CISF Constable and others vs Union of India and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: M.Y. Eqbal
**Case number / citation:** LPAs against CWJC Nos. 1707 and 1715 of 1998 (LPA numbers not stated in judgment text) / (2007) 1 JCR 248 (JHA); 2007 Lab IC (NOC) 558; 2007 (2) AIR Jhar R 536
**Judgment:** 2006-11-14 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-11-21 (1997)
**Place:** Bokaro, Jharkhand; city town: Kargali; police station or unit: CISF check post, Kargali colliery; force: central_armed
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CISF, Kargali colliery; Naik, CISF, Kargali colliery (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (M.Y. Eqbal J.) on 14 November 2006 dismissed the appeals of CISF constables and Naik of the Kargali colliery check post against their dismissal from service. The court recorded that surprise checks on 21 and 24 November 1997 found them collecting Rs. 50 and Rs. 65 respectively as illegal gratification from unidentified truck drivers and khalasis, for which they were charge-sheeted for gross misconduct, indiscipline and dereliction of duty and dismissed after a departmental inquiry. The court agreed with the Single Judge that the small sums recovered did not make the proved allegations any less grave for CISF constables, and that courts must not lightly interfere with punishments imposed after a properly conducted enquiry in disciplined services. It held the penalty of dismissal commensurate with the charges and dismissed both appeals, so the dismissals stand.

> Admittedly the appellants are constables in CISF and they were duty bound to maintain honesty and integrity in the discharge of their duty. The charge against the appellants regarding collecting money at the Check Post has been sufficiently proved.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1998654/); (2007) 1 JCR 248 (JHA); 2007 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 558; 2007 (2) AIR JHAR R 536
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** CISF Constable and others vs Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-11-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2007) 1 JCR 248 (JHA); 2007 Lab IC (NOC) 558; 2007 (2) AIR Jhar R 536', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1998654/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2007) 1 JCR 248 (JHA)', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2007 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 558', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2007 (2) AIR JHAR R 536', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** LPAs dismissed; both CISF constables' dismissals for illegal gratification upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0028)

## Ranchi Woman and Another vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2007-0022)

**Record:** CW-2007-0022 (compiler id CWC-0876); case GAP2-46-002
**Title:** Ranchi Woman and Another vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Narendra Nath Tiwari
**Case number / citation:** Writ petition filed September 2005 (number not stated in report) / (2007) 3 JLJR 367; 2007 (3) AIR Jhar R 794
**Judgment:** 2007-04-09 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-08-12 (2005)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand; city town: Ranchi; police station or unit: Traffic Police, Ranchi (Jail Chowk); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** MV Act 1988 s.122; MV Act 1988 s.130; MV Act 1988 s.177; MV Act 1988 s.66(ii); MV Act 1988 s.196; MV Act 1988 s.56/192; MV Act 1988 s.119/177; Taxation Act s.28; MV Act 1988 s.129A; MV Act 1988 s.207
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge (Traffic), Traffic Police, Ranchi (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ranchi woman; Ranchi resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. On 12 August 2005 Ranchi traffic police seized trekker JH-01-E-9057 at Jail Chowk, which the petitioners alleged followed their refusal to pay illegal gratification, and falsely implicated an advocate who took up the matter in a Motor Vehicles Act case. The Jharkhand High Court held the respondents could neither legally nor factually justify the seizure, the year-long detention of the vehicle, or the prosecution of a man who was neither owner nor driver. The court quashed the seizure and criminal proceedings as sheer abuse of process, ordered the vehicle released forthwith, and awarded Rs. 20,000 compensation payable within one month. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The said seizure and the criminal proceeding is, thus, sheer abuse of process of the Court and is not sustainable in the eye of law and are, hereby, quashed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/600391/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** Ranchi Woman and Another vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-04-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 20,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2007) 3 JLJR 367; 2007 (3) AIR Jhar R 794', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/600391/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Unjustified vehicle seizure and false prosecution quashed as abuse of process; Rs.20,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0022)

## Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand and Ors. (CW-2007-0016)

**Record:** CW-2007-0016 (compiler id CWC-0184); case JHARKH-014
**Title:** Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S.B. Sinha; Harjit Singh Bedi
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 5943 of 2007 / (2008) 2 SCC 74
**Judgment:** 2007-12-14 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1984-01-01 (1984)
**Place:** Bokaro, Jharkhand (district at time: Dhanbad); city town: Bokaro Steel City; police station or unit: Bihar Military Police, 'C' Company; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Akhilesh Kumar Singh (Writer Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Bihar Military Police writer constable Akhilesh Kumar Singh and upheld his 1987 dismissal for tampering with the general diary, making double and false entries, and misappropriating food allowance by claiming presence while absent, one charge of which he admitted. Rejecting his parity plea with co-delinquent, whose charges were less grave, the Court held that courts in judicial review do not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

> Appellant has, thus, been found guilty of tampering with records and committing forgery. He misappropriated food allowance.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/893586/); [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/30036.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-12-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2008) 2 SCC 74', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/893586/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/30036.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; writer constable's dismissal for forgery/misappropriation upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0016)

## Ratnesh Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2008-0007)

**Record:** CW-2008-0007 (compiler id CWC-0185); case JHARKH-015
**Title:** Ratnesh Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Amareshwar Sahay
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) (vs Memo No. 648(A) dated 20.09.2007) / (2008) 03 JH CK 0024
**Judgment:** 2008-03-04 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-01-01 (2004)
**Place:** East Singhbhum, Jharkhand; city town: Tatanagar, Jamshedpur; police station or unit: Railway Police, Tatanagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 385; IPC 352; IPC 506; IPC 323; IPC 427; SC/ST Act 1989 s.3
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ratnesh Kumar Singh (Police Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed police constable Ratnesh Kumar Singh's writ petition and upheld his dismissal for gross station-house misconduct at Tatanagar Railway Police, where in civil dress he abused the ASI with a caste slur, tried to tear the station diary and threw the telephone set down, leading to an FIR under Sections 385/352/506/323/427 IPC and the SC/ST Act plus departmental proceedings. Though the criminal trial (S.T. No. 315 of 2004) acquitted him after witnesses turned hostile, the Court held the departmental evidence, where witnesses supported the charges, stood independently and the G.M. Tank parity did not apply. The dismissal affirmed by Memo No. 648(A) dated 20 September 2007 was sustained. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> But in the present case, we find that the evidence in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal trial were not the same. As a matter of fact, in the criminal trial, the witnesses did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile whereas, in the departmental proceedings, the witnesses supported the charge and thereby, the charges were established against the petitioner.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/469414/ratnesh-kumar-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56092d72e4b01497111fc064)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Ratnesh Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-03-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2008) 03 JH CK 0024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/469414/ratnesh-kumar-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56092d72e4b01497111fc064', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Jharkhand HC order verified on CourtKutchehry; constable's dismissal for station-house misconduct upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0007)

## Railway Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others (Railway Police personnel vs State of Jharkhand and Others; \[name withheld\] vs State of Jharkhand and Others) (CW-2008-0031)

**Record:** CW-2008-0031 (compiler id CWC-0979); case GAP3-102-001
**Title:** Railway Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others (Railway Police personnel vs State of Jharkhand and Others; \[name withheld\] vs State of Jharkhand and Others)
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Ajit Kumar Sinha
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) Nos. 3861 of 2003, 1778 of 2003, 3905 of 2003 / (2009) 1 JCR 549 (JHA)
**Judgment:** 2008-12-17 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-05-26 (2001)
**Place:** East Singhbhum, Jharkhand; city town: Jamshedpur; police station or unit: Railway Police Station, Jamshedpur; force: railway
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 386/34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Railway Police, Jamshedpur; Constable, Railway Police; Constable, Railway Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Jamshedpur resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. On 26 May 2001 Railway Police constables, \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\], while on duty at the Jamshedpur railway platform, extorted Rs 500 from a Gitanjali Express passenger; G.R.P. Case No. 31/2000 (as stated in the judgment) under Section 386/34 IPC was lodged. All three participated in departmental enquiries, were held guilty, were dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, Railway, in July-August 2002, and their appeals were rejected by the DIG, Railway, in June-July 2003. The Jharkhand High Court (Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.) held full opportunity was given, natural justice was followed, and the court could not reappreciate concurrent findings of fact under Article 226. All three writ petitions were dismissed on 17 December 2008, so the dismissals stand; the court made no finding on the criminal charge itself.

> Under these facts and circumstances of the case all the three writ petitions, being devoid of any merit, are accordingly dismissed.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1050376/); 2009 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 614 (JHAR.); 2009 (1) AIR JHAR R 910
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Railway Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others (Railway Police personnel vs State of Jharkhand and Others; \[name withheld\] vs State of Jharkhand and Others)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-12-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2009) 1 JCR 549 (JHA)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1050376/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2009 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 614 (JHAR.)', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2009 (1) AIR JHAR R 910', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified; dismissal of three railway constables for passenger extortion upheld, writs dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0031)

## Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2012-0024)

**Record:** CW-2012-0024 (compiler id CWC-0993); case GAP3-104-008
**Title:** Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 5628 of 2009 / (2012) 02 JH CK 0108
**Judgment:** 2012-02-01 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-07-23 (2000)
**Place:** Bokaro, Jharkhand; city town: Bokaro; police station or unit: Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bokaro woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. Constable of Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro, was charged after being caught by a night patrol on 23 July 2000 leaving the quarters of a fellow constable in the same campus, with grave allegations of misconduct concerning the household. An enquiry with multiple witnesses found him guilty, and he was dismissed in February 2002, a penalty re-affirmed on reconsideration after an earlier writ remanded only the quantum question. The Jharkhand High Court found the enquiry procedurally sound with adequate hearing and held dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate for a member of a disciplined force. The Court dismissed the writ petition. (The private woman's name, stated in the judgment, is withheld here for privacy.). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner was working in a discipline force. He ought not to have behaved in such a manner. Therefore, the quantum of punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate or grossly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/474226/lalan-kumar-singh-appellant-hash-the-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent-1/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3.1(iv)
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-02-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2012) 02 JH CK 0108', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/474226/lalan-kumar-singh-appellant-hash-the-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent-1/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Jharkhand HC dismissed writ; JAP constable's dismissal for grave off-duty misconduct re-affirmed and upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0024)

## District Police Havildar vs State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2012-0030)

**Record:** CW-2012-0030 (compiler id CWC-0998); case GAP3-104-013
**Title:** District Police Havildar vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Narendra Nath Tiwari
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 1800 of 2002
**Judgment:** 2012-04-26 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-10-01 (1999)
**Place:** Pakur, Jharkhand; city town: Pakur; police station or unit: District Police Force, Pakur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Havildar, District Police Force, Pakur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Pakur resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (Narendra Nath Tiwari J.) on 26 April 2012 dismissed the writ petition of Pakur Havildar \[name withheld\] and upheld his discharge from service. The court recorded that he slapped Havildar twice, abused him, chased him into the office and assaulted him with a chair, fomented a caste-line disturbance and humiliated the Sergeant and Day Officer. The court held the charges were framed in plain terms, the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities had passed concurrent well-reasoned orders with no infirmity, and discharge was already a sympathetically reduced quantum in place of dismissal. The discharge was consequently sustained. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have concurred with the said conclusion of the disciplinary authority. The orders passed by the said authorities are thoroughly discussed and well reasoned. I find no infirmity or illegality in the orders.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69888581/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19-20
**display title redacted:** District Police Havildar vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-04-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 1800 of 2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69888581/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld discharge of havildar for proved assault and indiscipline.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0030)

## Ranchi Woman vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. (CW-2012-0011)

**Record:** CW-2012-0011 (compiler id CWC-0172); case JHARKH-002
**Title:** Ranchi Woman vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Aparesh Kumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 538 of 2007
**Judgment:** 2012-07-18 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-07-27 (1990)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand; city town: Ranchi; police station or unit: Jagannathpur Police Station, Ranchi; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; IPC 304; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Jagannathpur Police Station, Ranchi (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ranchi man, age 24 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. The petitioner sought compensation for the custodial death of her 24-year-old son, a Ranchi man @ a Ranchi man, who died after being subjected to brutal physical assault by Jagannathpur police personnel on 27 July 1990. The trial court in Sessions Trial No. 551 of 1993 had previously convicted the accused police officers under Section 304/34 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Relying on the coordinate bench decision in Bahlen Balmuchu, the Jharkhand High Court held that the custodial killing was a stark violation of Article 21 and directed the State of Jharkhand to pay Rs. 10,00,000 in compensation to the mother, granting liberty to recover the amount from the guilty police personnel. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The facts of the present case are more stark and repulsive as the Trial court has convicted the police officials accused of causing death of the petitioner's son \[name withheld\] and two others and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for two years vide judgment dated 27th March, 1996 and order of sentence dated 29th March, 1996.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122009310/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a (order p.7, para beginning 'The facts of the present case are more stark...')
**display title redacted:** Ranchi Woman vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-07-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(C) No. 538 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122009310/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court awarded Rs 10 lakh compensation to mother of a Ranchi man for custodial death caused by brutal assault by Jagannathpur police.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0011)

## Daltonganj Railway Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2012-0033)

**Record:** CW-2012-0033 (compiler id CWC-0995); case GAP3-104-010
**Title:** Daltonganj Railway Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Alok Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2012-08-28 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-02-05 (2004)
**Place:** Palamu, Jharkhand (district at time: Palamau); city town: Daltonganj (Medininagar); police station or unit: Daltonganj Railway Police; force: railway
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 307; IPC 353; IPC 504; IPC 506; Arms Act s.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Daltonganj Railway Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Daltonganj resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. Railway policeman, on duty with Daltonganj Railway Police on 5 February 2004, allegedly abused Inspector while drunk, then fired a round from Government Rifle No. 1309438 before colleagues overpowered him; medical examination found him drunk and ballistic opinion matched the cartridge to his rifle. He was dismissed in April 2006 and his appeal rejected, though a criminal court acquitted him under the Arms Act as no witness appeared. The Jharkhand High Court found the departmental charges of unauthorised firing and on-duty drunkenness proved on ballistic and medical evidence, distinguishing them from the criminal charge. The Court held acquittal alone was no ground to set aside the dismissal and dismissed the writ petition in limine. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Charge of firing from the Government rifle stands proved in view of the Ballistic report. Charge regarding consuming liquor while on duty is also proved by the medical report. Therefore, simply because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trial is not a ground to set aside the order of dismissal.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94809999/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Daltonganj Railway Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-08-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94809999/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Jharkhand HC dismissed writ in limine; dismissal for drunken unauthorised firing upheld despite criminal acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0033)

## Bihar Military Police Sepoy vs State of Bihar and Others (CW-2012-0035)

**Record:** CW-2012-0035 (compiler id CWC-0994); case GAP3-104-009
**Title:** Bihar Military Police Sepoy vs State of Bihar and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Alok Singh
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 1750 of 1995 (R)
**Judgment:** 2012-09-13 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1979-01-05 (1979)
**Place:** East Singhbhum, Jharkhand; city town: Jamshedpur; police station or unit: Bihar Military Police-II, Jamshedpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sepoy, Bihar Military Police-II, Jamshedpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Sepoy of BMP-II, Jamshedpur, was caught stealing an iron angle from the Lalbabu Tube Company on the night of 4/5 January 1979 (then undivided Bihar) and dismissed after a departmental enquiry, but the Ranchi Bench quashed that dismissal in 1991 for non-supply of documents and ordered a fresh enquiry. A de novo enquiry again proved the charge, leading to dismissal in May 1994 and rejection of his appeal. The Jharkhand High Court found all documents and the enquiry report had been served with the 1994 show-cause and rejected the non-supply plea. The Court held a sepoy caught red-handed stealing amply justified dismissal and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Petitioner, who was sepoy in the Bihar Military Police, was caught red handed stealing the iron angle. It is the sufficient ground to dismiss the petitioner from the police service. No interference is called for.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182669774/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Bihar Military Police Sepoy vs State of Bihar and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-09-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'C.W.J.C. No. 1750 of 1995 (R)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182669774/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Jharkhand HC dismissed writ; de novo dismissal for red-handed factory theft (1979) upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0035)

## Godda District Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2012-0036)

**Record:** CW-2012-0036 (compiler id CWC-0997); case GAP3-104-012
**Title:** Godda District Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Alok Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 4321 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2012-10-09 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-01-01 (2001)
**Place:** Godda, Jharkhand; city town: Godda; police station or unit: Godda District Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 364
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Godda District Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Godda resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (Alok Singh J.) on 9 October 2012 dismissed the writ petition of Godda police Constable and upheld his termination from service. The court recorded as undisputed that he had been convicted under Section 364 IPC in Sahebganj Muffassil P.S. Case No. 51 of 2001, that the conviction had attained finality, and that his absence from duty was spent serving the sentence in Central Jail. The court held that under Rule 828(b) of the Jharkhand Police Manual no notice or departmental enquiry is required where termination follows a criminal conviction. The termination was consequently sustained. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The very fact that petitioner was named as the accused in the Sahebganj Muffassil P.S. Case No. 51 of 2001 and was held guilty and convicted by competent court for an offence under Section 364 I.P.C. and remained in jail, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that conviction order against the petitioner has attained finality.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190588531/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a (unnumbered order dated 09.10.2012)
**display title redacted:** Godda District Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-10-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 4321 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190588531/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld conviction-based termination of constable convicted under IPC 364.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0036)

## CISF Constable vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2013-0021)

**Record:** CW-2013-0021 (compiler id CWC-0996); case GAP3-104-011
**Title:** CISF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Aparesh Kumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 1882 of 1998 (R) / (2013) 2 AJR 684; (2013) 2 JLJR 25
**Judgment:** 2013-02-28 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-01-09 (1997)
**Place:** Bokaro, Jharkhand; city town: Bokaro; police station or unit: CISF Unit, Bokaro Steel Plant; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CISF Unit, Bokaro Steel Plant (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bokaro resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (Aparesh Kumar Singh J.) on 28 February 2013 dismissed the writ petition of CISF Constable and upheld his removal from service. The court recorded that on 9 January 1997 he assaulted Sub-Inspector-Fire a Bokaro resident, who emerged bleeding from the side of his head, and that seven witnesses proved the charge in an ex-parte enquiry the petitioner boycotted despite four notices. The court held the plea for a higher-ranked enquiry officer was rightly rejected, that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to represent against the enquiry report, and that removal was not excessive or disproportionate to assaulting a superior. The appellate and revisional rejections were consequently sustained. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For such major misconduct in the uniformed service like C.I.S.F., the punishment of removal from the service is not at all disproportionate to the charges levelled and established against the delinquent for assaulting a superior authority.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/472533/hari-om-sharma-appellant-hash-the-union-of-india-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** CISF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-02-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2013) 2 AJR 684; (2013) 2 JLJR 25', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/472533/hari-om-sharma-appellant-hash-the-union-of-india-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld CISF constable's removal for proved assault on a superior officer.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0021)

## Patmada Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2013-0025)

**Record:** CW-2013-0025 (compiler id CWC-0992); case GAP3-104-007
**Title:** Patmada Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: S. Chandrashekhar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 704 of 2003 / (2013) 2 JLJR 628
**Judgment:** 2013-04-18 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-09-25 (2000)
**Place:** East Singhbhum, Jharkhand; city town: Patmada; police station or unit: Patmada Police Station, East Singhbhum; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 461; IPC 379; IPC 411
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Patmada Police Station, East Singhbhum (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. Constable of Patmada Police Station, East Singhbhum, was apprehended by villagers on the night of 24/25 September 2000 at the scene of a godown theft near the Swarnrekha river, leading to Patmada P.S. Case No. 66 of 2000 under IPC sections 461, 379 and 411. He was dismissed in August 2001 after a departmental enquiry in which villagers deposed against him, and his appeal was rejected. The Jharkhand High Court found the enquiry report had been supplied with the show-cause notice and no prejudice was shown, and held that theft involving moral turpitude warranted dismissal. The Court dismissed the writ petition, and the Division Bench later dismissed his appeal, holding departmental proof could stand despite his criminal acquittal on hostile witnesses.

> A perusal of the enquiry report would disclose that the petitioner was apprehended on the spot by the villagers in the night of 24/25.9.2000 and a First Information Report was lodged against him. During the departmental enquiry, the villagers have deposed that the petitioner was apprehended on the spot and he along with the officer-in-charge of the police station and other two persons facilitated the theft of iron rods from the godown.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/471686/barmeshwar-nath-singh-yadav-appellant-hash-the-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/482891/barmeshwar-nath-singh-yadav-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Patmada Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['secondary_sources'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-04-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2013) 2 JLJR 628', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/471686/barmeshwar-nath-singh-yadav-appellant-hash-the-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/482891/barmeshwar-nath-singh-yadav-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Jharkhand HC dismissed writ; dismissal for facilitating godown theft (moral turpitude) upheld despite criminal acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0025)

## Rail Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2013-0039)

**Record:** CW-2013-0039 (compiler id CWC-0987); case GAP3-104-002
**Title:** Rail Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: R. Banumathi; Aparesh Kumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** LPA No. 456 of 2012 (against W.P.(S) No. 2078 of 2012) / (2014) 1 JLJR 291; (2013) 12 JH CK 0019
**Judgment:** 2013-12-06 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-05-27 (2003)
**Place:** Koderma, Jharkhand; city town: Koderma; police station or unit: Rail Police, Dhanbad; force: railway
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 377
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Rail Police, Dhanbad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Koderma boy, age 12 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

delete parenthetical '(recorded as dismissal-type penalty)'. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The charges against the petitioner was found established and are so serious in nature that any employer is justified in losing confidence in such a delinquent employee.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2776759/); (2014) 1 JLJR 291; (2013) 12 JH CK 0019
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Rail Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'secondary_sources', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-12-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2014) 1 JLJR 291; (2013) 12 JH CK 0019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2776759/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2014) 1 JLJR 291', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2013) 12 JH CK 0019', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** LPA dismissed; railway constable's compulsory retirement for sexual abuse of minor upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0039)

## Bihar Military Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2014-0032)

**Record:** CW-2014-0032 (compiler id CWC-0989); case GAP3-104-004
**Title:** Bihar Military Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sujit Narayan Prasad
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 6056 of 2007 / (2015) 2 JLJR 38
**Judgment:** 2014-11-10 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-03-09 (1994)
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; city town: Govindpur; police station or unit: Bihar Military Police-3, Govindpur / District Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bihar Military Police-3, Govindpur, Dhanbad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable, first dismissed in 1979 for fleeing patrol duty at Ara railway station — a dismissal that attained finality up to the Supreme Court in 1981 — was reinstated in 1993-94 and posted with BMP-3 at Govindpur, Dhanbad. A later enquiry found that the reinstatement rested on a forged Home Department letter, leading to his dismissal in October 2005 and rejection of his appeal. The Jharkhand High Court held that fraud vitiates everything, so no fresh regular departmental proceeding was required before cancelling an appointment obtained by forgery. The Court found the impugned orders warranted no interference and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Hence applying the principles laid down by Hon'ble Court in the case referred herein above the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/482513/vinod-kumar-yadav-appellant-hash-the-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22-23
**display title redacted:** Bihar Military Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-11-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2015) 2 JLJR 38', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/482513/vinod-kumar-yadav-appellant-hash-the-state-of-jharkhand-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Jharkhand HC dismissed writ; dismissal over forged-letter reinstatement upheld — fraud vitiates appointment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0032)

## Barora Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2014-0034)

**Record:** CW-2014-0034 (compiler id CWC-0999); case GAP3-104-014
**Title:** Barora Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Aparesh Kumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 4675 of 2005
**Judgment:** 2014-11-14 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-10-31 (1993)
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; city town: Barora; police station or unit: Barora Police Station, Dhanbad; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Barora Police Station, Dhanbad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Barora resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. replace victim name 'a minor' with role noun (e.g. 'a man'/'a boy'). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The enquiry officer found the charges against the petitioner fully established on consideration of materials produced during the course of enquiry. Perusal of the enquiry report shows that the statement of the witness, officer in-charge and the Sanjeet Kumar Mishra, who was informant, have been taken into account for coming to such a finding.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37084102/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Barora Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-11-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 4675 of 2005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37084102/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld compulsory retirement of ASI for fatal unprovoked shooting despite acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0034)

## Gomoh Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand (CW-2014-0037)

**Record:** CW-2014-0037 (compiler id CWC-0990); case GAP3-104-005
**Title:** Gomoh Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Aparesh Kumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 104 of 2006 / (2015) 3 JLJR 78
**Judgment:** 2014-12-12 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-12-24 (2000)
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; city town: Gomoh; police station or unit: Gomoh Railway Police Station; force: railway
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Gomoh Railway Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Gomoh resident; Gomoh resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. Constable of Gomoh Railway Police Station faced 11 charges arising from incidents including 24 December 2000, when he allegedly loaded his service rifle, threatened the Officer Incharge and reader, aimed the rifle at the Officer Incharge with intent to shoot, and chased the reader onto a crowded platform. Three of four departmental witnesses supported the charges, and he was dismissed in June 2003, with his appeal and memorial rejected. The Jharkhand High Court found the charges established after due compliance with natural justice and held that threatening a superior with official arms amounts to serious indiscipline no uniformed force must condone. The Court rejected the pleas of provocation and disproportionality and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> He actually appears to have threatened by misuse of his official arms his own superior i.e. Officer Incharge with an intention to kill and it further appears that such an instance took place in the busy place which is adjacent to the platform. In such circumstances, it cannot also be said that the petitioner has been imposed with a disproportionate punishment as such acts of indiscipline in uniform police force should not be condoned.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/481717/mahesh-singh-appellant-hash-the-state-of-jharkhand-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11-12
**display title redacted:** Gomoh Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-12-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2015) 3 JLJR 78', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/481717/mahesh-singh-appellant-hash-the-state-of-jharkhand-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Jharkhand HC dismissed writ; dismissal for aiming service rifle at superior with intent to shoot upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0037)

## Chirkunda Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2014-0038)

**Record:** CW-2014-0038 (compiler id CWC-0991); case GAP3-104-006
**Title:** Chirkunda Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sujit Narayan Prasad
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 2486 of 2013 / (2014) 12 JH CK 0117
**Judgment:** 2014-12-17 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-01-01 (2009)
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; city town: Chirkunda; police station or unit: Chirkunda Police Station, Dhanbad; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Bihar Jharkhand Servant Conduct Rules 1976 Rule 3; Bihar Jharkhand Servant Conduct Rules 1976 Rule 4
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Chirkunda Police Station, Dhanbad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. Constable, appointed in the Gumla District Police in 1999 and posted at Chirkunda Police Station, Dhanbad, was charged with reporting for and remaining on duty in a drunken state and abusing colleagues and the public during 2009-2010. A regular departmental enquiry, supported by the Officer Incharge's evidence and four prior punishments for similar conduct, proved the charges, and he was dismissed in April 2010 with his appeal rejected. The Jharkhand High Court found he had been given repeated opportunities but chose not to appear, and held his conduct unfit for a government servant under the Conduct Rules. The Court declined to reappraise concurrent findings under Article 226 and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Considering the nature of allegation it can be safely said that the conduct of the petitioner is not fit to be a government servant. On perusal of record it appears that sufficient opportunity of being heard had been given to the petitioner but, it was the petitioner who himself chosen not to appear before the inquiry officer, in spite of several notices given to him which reflects his adamant attitude.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1027220/peter-barla-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-and-ors-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Chirkunda Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-12-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2014) 12 JH CK 0117', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1027220/peter-barla-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-and-ors-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Jharkhand HC dismissed writ; dismissal for habitual on-duty drunkenness and abuse upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0038)

## Koyla Nagar Police Constable vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2015-0017)

**Record:** CW-2015-0017 (compiler id CWC-1030); case GAP3-105-031
**Title:** Koyla Nagar Police Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sujit Narayan Prasad
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 4822 of 2011 / 2015 LAB. I. C. 3838; 2015 (3) AJR 806
**Judgment:** 2015-01-15 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-04-06 (2009)
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; city town: Koyla Nagar; police station or unit: Central Industrial Security Force, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; CISF Rules 2001 Rule 32(1); CISF Rules 2001 Rule 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Central Industrial Security Force, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (Sujit Narayan Prasad J.) dismissed a CISF constable's writ challenging his removal dated 21 October 2009. The court found proved three charges: absence from main-gate duty at Koyla Nagar on 6-7 April 2009, abusing higher officials with bullet threats on 7 April 2009, and five prior punishments for indiscipline. It held that concurrent findings of three authorities on record material cannot be reappreciated in writ review and that the removal was not shockingly disproportionate. The removal, already affirmed in revision on 31 March 2010, therefore stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Other allegation of using abusive language against the higher authorities and the members of the Office of the Inspector is also serious. The witnesses have corroborated the said allegation in their deposition.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28784180/); 2015 LAB. I. C. 3838; 2015 (3) AJR 806
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Koyla Nagar Police Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-01-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2015 LAB. I. C. 3838; 2015 (3) AJR 806', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28784180/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2015 LAB. I. C. 3838', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2015 (3) AJR 806', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; CISF removal for absence and threats to superiors upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0017)

## Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2015-0018)

**Record:** CW-2015-0018 (compiler id CWC-1029); case GAP3-105-030
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: D. N. Patel; Pramath Patnaik
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 233 of 2013 / 2015 (2) AJR 214
**Judgment:** 2015-01-28 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** East Singhbhum, Jharkhand; city town: Jamshedpur; police station or unit: Patmada Police Station, Jharkhand Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 379; IPC 411; IPC 461
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Patmada Police Station, Jharkhand Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Division Bench (D. N. Patel and Pramath Patnaik JJ.) dismissed a constable's Letters Patent Appeal against the Single Judge order dated 18 April 2013 upholding his dismissal for theft. The court noted the trial court had convicted and sentenced him to two years' simple imprisonment, and held the later criminal appellate acquittal on hostile witnesses did not erase the departmentally proved charges. It further held that unpleaded, undocumented prejudice from enquiry-report handling could not vitiate the punishment. Finding no error in the Single Judge's order, the court dismissed the appeal, leaving the dismissal standing.

> Looking to the nature of misconduct committed by this appellant, the punishment of dismissal awarded to this appellant is absolutely just, proper and adequate.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113206176/); 2015 (2) AJR 214
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5(x)
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-01-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2015 (2) AJR 214', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113206176/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2015 (2) AJR 214', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** LPA dismissed; theft dismissal upheld despite criminal appellate acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0018)

## Jharkhand Police Hawaldar vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2015-0021)

**Record:** CW-2015-0021 (compiler id CWC-1031); case GAP3-105-032
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Hawaldar vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sujit Narayan Prasad
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 6176 of 2009 / 2015 (3) AJR 675
**Judgment:** 2015-02-04 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; city town: Hazaribagh; police station or unit: Jharkhand Police (posted Chaibasa); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Hawaldar, Jharkhand Police (posted Chaibasa) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Hazaribagh woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (Sujit Narayan Prasad J.) dismissed a Hawaldar's writ against his dismissal dated 31 March 2004. The court found the enquiry had proved, on witness depositions and documents, that he stalked a Hazaribagh woman under a false identity, misused his service pistol, threatened adverse newspaper publicity, and demanded Rs. 3 lakhs. It held that writ review examines only whether the disciplinary conclusion rests on evidence, and that the petitioner had been heard at every stage. The dismissal, already affirmed in appeal and memorial, therefore stands.

> The Enquiry Officer has come to a definite finding in its opinion part of the inquiry report that the petitioner has misused his official position and fell in love with a girl and wanted to marry her.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128263266/); 2015 (3) AJR 675
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Hawaldar vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-02-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2015 (3) AJR 675', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128263266/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2015 (3) AJR 675', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; dismissal for stalking, pistol misuse and extortion upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0021)

## Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2015-0028)

**Record:** CW-2015-0028 (compiler id CWC-1032); case GAP3-105-033
**Title:** Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Pramath Patnaik
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 873 of 2008
**Judgment:** 2015-07-10 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-08-05 (2005)
**Place:** Palamu, Jharkhand; police station or unit: Jharkhand Armed Police-8, Palamau; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Armed Police-8, Palamau (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (Pramath Patnaik J.) dismissed a Jharkhand Armed Police constable's writ against his dismissal dated 30 October 2007. The court found he had concealed a previous criminal case and judicial custody at appointment, which it held amounts to grave misconduct, particularly in a disciplined service like the police. It held that unshown prejudice from enquiry-report handling could not vitiate the proceeding and that the major punishment was proportionate. The dismissal, confirmed in departmental appeal on 20 August 2008, therefore stands.

> Since the petitioner is guilty of concealment of information about his previous criminal case, it amounts to grave misconduct. Particularly in a disciplined service like police.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63247379/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14(i)
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-07-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 873 of 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63247379/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; dismissal for concealing criminal antecedents upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0028)

## CISF Constable vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2015-0032)

**Record:** CW-2015-0032 (compiler id CWC-1033); case GAP3-105-034
**Title:** CISF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Pramath Patnaik
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 3911 of 2007
**Judgment:** 2015-10-30 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-10-15 (2001)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand; city town: Ranchi; police station or unit: CISF Unit, Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** CISF Rules 1969 Rule 30; CISF Rules 2001 Rule 36
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CISF Unit, Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (Pramath Patnaik J.) dismissed a CISF constable's writ against his dismissal dated 29 July 2002. The court found he was drunk on firing-point duty at HEC Ranchi on 15 October 2001 and disobeyed a lawful order to deposit his rifle, against a record of one major and 18 minor prior punishments. It held that punishment choice lies exclusively with the competent authority and no interference on quantum was warranted. The dismissal, already affirmed in appeal and revision, therefore stands.

> Furthermore, the petitioner has been examined by Dr. S.K. Kisku and the medical report of Dr. Kisku finds corroboration in the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer. Therefore, the conclusion is irresistible that the petitioner consumed alcohol.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11324583/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8(a)
**display title redacted:** CISF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-10-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 3911 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11324583/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; CISF dismissal for drunkenness and disobedience upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0032)

## Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2015-0033)

**Record:** CW-2015-0033 (compiler id CWC-1035); case GAP3-105-036
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Pramath Patnaik
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 1128 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2015-10-30 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-01-01 (2008)
**Place:** Garhwa, Jharkhand; police station or unit: Jharkhand Police, Garhwa; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Police, Garhwa (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (Pramath Patnaik J.) dismissed a Garhwa constable's writ against his dismissal dated 20 August 2010. The court found departmental evidence proved intentional forgery and fraud: two matriculation identities, simultaneous appointments in two states, and fraudulent salary draw, and not mere irregularity. It held the confirmed dismissal was neither evidence-free nor shockingly disproportionate. The dismissal, confirmed in appeal and memorial, therefore stands.

> On careful consideration of the writ application, counter-affidavit, rejoinder to the counter-affidavit as well as the rivalised submissions, it appears that it has been found that the charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved by the evidence on record on the departmental proceeding and otherwise reports obtained from S.P., Patna and Jehanabad as well as the records of authority of Police of Garhwa that the petitioner has not committed only simple misconduct and irregularity rather he intentionally committed serious offence of forgery and fraud for illegal benefits of obtaining the amount of salary from the government fund.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8302120/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10(I)
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-10-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 1128 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8302120/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; dismissal for dual-identity recruitment fraud upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0033)

## Dhanbad Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2015-0035)

**Record:** CW-2015-0035 (compiler id CWC-1000); case GAP3-105-001
**Title:** Dhanbad Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Pramath Patnaik
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 5406 of 2012 / (2016) 1 JLJR 45; (2016) 1 AJR 304
**Judgment:** 2015-11-06 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated (2009)
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; city town: Dhanbad; police station or unit: Dhanbad Police, Computer/Confidential Section; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Dhanbad Police, Computer/Confidential Section (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (Pramath Patnaik J.) on 6 November 2015 dismissed the writ petition of police Constable and upheld his dismissal from service. The court recorded that he dishonestly drew Rs. 11,630 as house rent allowance for March, September, October and November 2009 and January 2010 while retaining official accommodation at Dhanbad, and was dismissed after Departmental Proceeding No. 169 of 2010. The court held the enquiry was properly constituted, guilt rested on material on record, judicial review could not reappreciate evidence, and dismissal was not disproportionate. The dismissal, already affirmed in appeal and memorial, was consequently sustained.

> Admittedly, on the basis of allegations, charges has been framed and the enquiry has been conducted in which the petitioner has been found guilty by the enquiry officer.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/481470/manoj-kumar-sinha-vs-the-state-of-jharkhand-and-others/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117416325/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7(I)
**display title redacted:** Dhanbad Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-11-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2016) 1 JLJR 45; (2016) 1 AJR 304', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/481470/manoj-kumar-sinha-vs-the-state-of-jharkhand-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117416325/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld dismissal of constable for dishonest HRA withdrawals of Rs. 11,630.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0035)

## Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2015-0037)

**Record:** CW-2015-0037 (compiler id CWC-1034); case GAP3-105-035
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Pramath Patnaik
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 7671 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2015-12-04 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-09-22 (2008)
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; city town: Dhanbad; police station or unit: Jharkhand Police, Dhanbad (PMCH prisoner-ward guard); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Police, Dhanbad (PMCH prisoner-ward guard) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Dhanbad resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court (Pramath Patnaik J.) dismissed a Dhanbad constable writ against his dismissal dated 6 March 2010. The court found proved gross negligence on prisoner-ward guard duty at PMCH, where an undertrial suffered burn injuries on 22 September 2008 and an inspection later found no uniformed guard at the ward. It held three concurrent evidence-based findings cannot be reappraised under Article 226 given the serious misconduct. The dismissal, affirmed in appeal and revision, therefore stands.

> As per the statement of the accused, there was candles and matches in the prisoner ward, the fire incident took place due to absence of the petitioner and others on the spot the fire engulfed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158631019/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7(i)
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-12-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 7671 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158631019/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; dismissal for negligence on undertrial guard duty upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0037)

## Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2016-0012)

**Record:** CW-2016-0012 (compiler id CWC-1040); case GAP3-105-041
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Virender Singh; P. P. Bhatt
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 82 of 2015
**Judgment:** 2016-01-12 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; city town: Dhanbad; police station or unit: Tiger Mobile, Dhanbad; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Police, Tiger Mobile, Dhanbad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Division Bench, condoning 17 days delay, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal of Tiger Mobile constable against his dismissal dated 31 March 2010. The court found a regular departmental enquiry with medical evidence proved he consumed liquor on duty and, in a drunken state, pointed the government revolver at a fellow constable, constituting gross indiscipline on its face. The court held the writ court order of 12 December 2014 suffered from no infirmity on facts or law, with two authorities concurrently affirming the dismissal. The dismissal therefore stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Viewed thus, the appeal on hand merits dismissal being devoid of any merit in it.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104442173/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-01-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'L.P.A. No. 82 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104442173/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench dismissed LPA; dismissal for on-duty drunkenness and pointing service revolver upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0012)

## The State of Jharkhand and Others vs Jharkhand Police Constable and others (CW-2016-0013)

**Record:** CW-2016-0013 (compiler id CWC-1036); case GAP3-105-037
**Title:** The State of Jharkhand and Others vs Jharkhand Police Constable and others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: D. N. Patel; Amitav K. Gupta
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 329 of 2014 / 2016 (3) AJR 763; (2016) 4 JCR 415
**Judgment:** 2016-01-27 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-01-01 (2004)
**Place:** Seraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand (district at time: Saraikela Kharsawan); police station or unit: Superintendent of Police, Seraikela-Kharsawan; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Jharkhand Police Manual Rule 663; Police Act 1861 s.7; Police Act 1861 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Police, Seraikela-Kharsawan (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Division Bench allowed the State appeal and restored the dismissal of constable, setting aside the Single Judge order of 13 November 2013 that had reinstated him with full back wages. The court found he had secured appointment under the 50 percent trained Home Guard quota by annexing only an identity card though his 45-day training was incomplete on the closing date, a misrepresentation exposed on verification. The court held the enquiry, with charge sheet, hearing and second show cause, adequate and the dismissal by the SP, affirmed by the DIG Kolhan Range, proportionate for grave indiscipline in a disciplined force. The dismissal therefore stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> we hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3433 of 2013 dated 13th November, 2013. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99650765/); 2016 (3) AJR 763; (2016) 4 JCR 415
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** The State of Jharkhand and Others vs Jharkhand Police Constable and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-01-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2016 (3) AJR 763; (2016) 4 JCR 415', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99650765/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2016 (3) AJR 763', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2016) 4 JCR 415', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench allowed State appeal and restored dismissal for Home Guard-quota appointment fraud; disciplinary action upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0013)

## The State of Jharkhand and Others vs Jharkhand Police Constable and others (CW-2016-0014)

**Record:** CW-2016-0014 (compiler id CWC-1037); case GAP3-105-038
**Title:** The State of Jharkhand and Others vs Jharkhand Police Constable and others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: D. N. Patel; Amitav K. Gupta
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 328 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2016-01-27 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-01-01 (2004)
**Place:** Seraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand (district at time: Saraikela Kharsawan); police station or unit: Superintendent of Police, Seraikela-Kharsawan; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Jharkhand Police Manual Rule 663(x); Police Act 1861 s.7; Police Act 1861 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Police, Seraikela-Kharsawan (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Division Bench allowed the State appeal and restored the dismissal dated 14 October 2012 of constable, setting aside the Single Judge order of 13 November 2013 that had reinstated him with full back wages. Decided the same day on the identical pattern as the companion appeals, the court found he had secured appointment under the trained Home Guard quota without completed training, a misrepresentation exposed on verification. The court held the enquiry and departmental appeal observed and the dismissal, affirmed by the DIG Kolhan Range on 7 April 2013, proportionate. The dismissal therefore stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> we hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3277 of 2013 dated 13th November, 2013. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88958401/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** The State of Jharkhand and Others vs Jharkhand Police Constable and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-01-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'L.P.A. No. 328 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88958401/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench allowed State appeal and restored dismissal for Home Guard-quota appointment fraud; disciplinary action upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0014)

## The State of Jharkhand and Others vs Jharkhand Police Constable and others (CW-2016-0015)

**Record:** CW-2016-0015 (compiler id CWC-1038); case GAP3-105-039
**Title:** The State of Jharkhand and Others vs Jharkhand Police Constable and others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: D. N. Patel; Amitav K. Gupta
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 327 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2016-01-27 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-01-01 (2004)
**Place:** Seraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand (district at time: Saraikela Kharsawan); police station or unit: Superintendent of Police, Seraikela-Kharsawan; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Jharkhand Police Manual Rule 663(x); Police Act 1861 s.7; Police Act 1861 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Police, Seraikela-Kharsawan (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Division Bench allowed the State appeal and restored the dismissal dated 14 October 2012 of constable, setting aside the Single Judge order of 18 January 2014 that had reinstated him. Decided the same day on the identical pattern as the companion appeals, the court found he had secured appointment under the trained Home Guard quota without completed training, a misrepresentation exposed on verification. The court held the enquiry and departmental appeal observed and the dismissal, affirmed by the DIG Kolhan Range on 14 April 2013, proportionate. The dismissal therefore stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> we hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3364 of 2013 dated 18th January, 2014. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12736229/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** The State of Jharkhand and Others vs Jharkhand Police Constable and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-01-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'L.P.A. No. 327 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12736229/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench allowed State appeal and restored dismissal for Home Guard-quota appointment fraud; disciplinary action upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0015)

## Govindpur Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand (CW-2016-0016)

**Record:** CW-2016-0016 (compiler id CWC-1003); case GAP3-105-004
**Title:** Govindpur Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Virender Singh; Shree Chandrashekhar
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 77 of 2015 / 2016 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 382 (JHAR.); (2016) 2 JLJR 365; (2016) 2 JCR 504
**Judgment:** 2016-02-16 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2010-08-20 (2010)
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; city town: Govindpur; police station or unit: Baliapur Police Station, Dhanbad; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 420; IPC 491
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Baliapur Police Station, Dhanbad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Govindpur resident; Govindpur resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Division Bench (Virender Singh CJ, Shree Chandrashekhar J.) on 16 February 2016 dismissed the LPA of Dhanbad Constable and upheld his dismissal from service. The court recorded that on 20-21 August 2010 he impersonated the Superintendent of Police bodyguard, demanded Rs. 12,000 from truck driver \[name withheld\] for releasing his truck and accepted Rs. 5,000, besides absconding from duty. The court held the jail-recorded enquiry was fair, the compromise-based criminal acquittal did not touch the departmental findings, and the appellate order showed proper application of mind. The dismissal, already affirmed in appeal, memorial and writ, was consequently sustained.

> The criminal case registered against the appellant ended in acquittal of the appellant on the basis of the compromise between the informant and the appellant. The order of acquittal dated 17.11.2011 in criminal case bearing G.R. No. 2876/2010 (T.R. No. 1692/2011) is not on merits of the case. Even otherwise also, acquittal in the criminal case would not affect the merits of the findings recorded during the departmental enquiry which are based on the evidence led during the enquiry.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106999058/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Govindpur Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-02-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2016 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 382 (JHAR.); (2016) 2 JLJR 365; (2016) 2 JCR 504', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106999058/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB upheld dismissal of constable for extorting truck driver by impersonation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0016)

## Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2016-0017)

**Record:** CW-2016-0017 (compiler id CWC-1009); case GAP3-105-010
**Title:** Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Pramath Patnaik
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 4147 of 2015 / (2016) 2 JCR 482
**Judgment:** 2016-02-19 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-07-02 (2013)
**Place:** Palamu, Jharkhand (district at time: Palamau); city town: Ramgarh; police station or unit: Jharkhand Armed Police-3, Govindpur, Dhanbad (posted Ramgarh PS, Palamu); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Armed Police-3, Govindpur, Dhanbad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court disposed of as devoid of merit the writ petition of JAP-3 Constable against his dismissal for ten days of leave without information and failure to rejoin duty despite repeated directions. The court held the enquiry rested on overwhelming material with no procedural infirmity and that judicial review does not permit reappreciation of enquiry evidence. It found no ground to interfere with the dismissal order of 24 January 2014. The dismissal therefore stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and applying the aforesaid principles of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered herein above, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal dated 24.01.2014 passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-3 does not warrant any interference by this Court.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/483725/tufan-chandra-baski-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-others-respondent/); (2016) 2 JCR 482
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-02-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2016) 2 JCR 482', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/483725/tufan-chandra-baski-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2016) 2 JCR 482', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ against dismissal for unauthorised absence disposed of as devoid of merit.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0017)

## Police 728 \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2016-0023)

**Record:** CW-2016-0023 (compiler id CWC-1039); case GAP3-105-040
**Title:** Police 728 \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Pramath Patnaik
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 5239 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2016-04-12 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-07-12 (2006)
**Place:** Bokaro, Jharkhand; city town: Bokaro; police station or unit: Bokaro Police Line; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Police, Bokaro Police Line (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of Bokaro constable, appointed on 12 July 2006 on compassionate ground, challenging his dismissal dated 31 July 2014. The court found he had suppressed a Hulasganj criminal case in his appointment declaration, exposed by letter dated 1 October 2011, and that his detailed show cause reply was considered before dismissal. The court held, following R. Radhakrishnan, that withholding material information about criminal antecedents is itself moral turpitude rendering him unsuitable, regardless of the criminal case outcome. The dismissal therefore stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the impugned order of dismissal dated 31.07.2014 passed by respondent no.3 pertaining to dismissal from service, does not warrant interference by this Court.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27646742/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Police 728 \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-04-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 5239 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27646742/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Single Judge dismissed writ; dismissal for suppressing criminal case at appointment upheld as moral turpitude.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0023)

## Dhanbad Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2016-0028)

**Record:** CW-2016-0028 (compiler id CWC-1006); case GAP3-105-007
**Title:** Dhanbad Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Virender Singh; Shree Chandrashekhar
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 2 of 2016 / (2016) 3 AIR Jhar R 861; (2016) 3 JCR 717
**Judgment:** 2016-05-17 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-07-28 (2008)
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; city town: Dhanbad; police station or unit: Dhanbad Police (Hariharpur Police Station); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 384
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Dhanbad Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Dhanbad resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Division Bench dismissed the appeal of Constable against his dismissal for snatching Rs. 17,000 from passenger a Dhanbad resident at Dhanbad Railway Station on 28 July 2008 and for unauthorised absence. The court held the ex parte enquiry was fair, with registered notice sent, local police alerted, the written defence considered and two witnesses examined, and that non-examination of the victim did not make it a no-evidence case. It found dismissal was not a disproportionate penalty. The dismissal, already affirmed in appeal, memorial and writ, therefore stands.

> Having considered all aspects of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the instant Letters Patent Appeal lacks merit and accordingly, it warrants dismissal. Ordered accordingly.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177078118/); (2016) 3 AIR Jhar R 861; (2016) 3 JCR 717
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Dhanbad Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-05-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2016) 3 AIR Jhar R 861; (2016) 3 JCR 717', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177078118/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2016) 3 AIR Jhar R 861', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2016) 3 JCR 717', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** LPA against dismissal for extortion from railway passenger dismissed; dismissal stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0028)

## CRPF Constable and others vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2016-0033)

**Record:** CW-2016-0033 (compiler id CWC-1014); case GAP3-105-015
**Title:** CRPF Constable and others vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Jyoti Saran
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 378 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2016-09-14 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-02-18 (2009)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand; city town: Dhurwa; police station or unit: 133 Battalion, CRPF, Dhurwa, Ranchi; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, 133 Battalion, CRPF (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Patna High Court records the following account. \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\], a CRPF constable of 133 Battalion at Dhurwa, Ranchi, challenged his May 2010 dismissal for overstaying leave sanctioned from January to February 2009. The court found he had remained absent for hundreds of days without justifiable reason, rejecting his medical and bias pleas. The court held that overstay by members of a disciplined force is indiscipline to be dealt with sternly and that the punishment suffered no infirmity on merits or quantum. The writ petition was dismissed, and the dismissal, already affirmed in appeal and revision, stands.

> the order of punishment is not capable for being interfered with either on merits or on quantum.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190822956/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** CRPF Constable and others vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-09-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 378 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190822956/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC dismissed the writ; dismissal of CRPF constable for prolonged overstay of leave upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0033)

## Jharkhand Rail Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand (CW-2016-0034)

**Record:** CW-2016-0034 (compiler id CWC-1004); case GAP3-105-005
**Title:** Jharkhand Rail Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Pramath Patnaik
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 107 of 2010 / (2017) 1 AIR Jhar R 719; (2017) 1 JBCJ 357; (2016) 4 JLJR 620
**Judgment:** 2016-09-23 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-03-20 (1997)
**Place:** East Singhbhum, Jharkhand; city town: Jamshedpur (Tatanagar); police station or unit: Tatanagar Government Railway Police Station; force: railway
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307; IPC 379; Arms Act s.25; Arms Act s.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Tatanagar GRPS, Jharkhand Rail Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jamshedpur resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the writ petition of Constable challenging his dismissal for shooting dead the Officer-in-Charge of a Jamshedpur resident on 20 March 1997 after being refused leave. The court held that Departmental Proceeding No. 37/1998 had proved the charge, that Police Manual Rules 844/847 and natural justice were not breached, and that the proceeding was not held behind his back. It found neither the dismissal order of 13 April 2000 nor the appellate order of 12 October 2009 called for interference. The dismissal therefore stands; the criminal case (GRPS Case No. 32/97) proceeded separately. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the impugned order dated 13.04.2000 at Annexure 5 and appellate order dated 12.10.2009 at Annexure 2 do not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition, sans merit is dismissed.

**Sources (4):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/483850/arvind-kumar-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-respondent/); (2017) 1 AIR Jhar R 719; (2017) 1 JBCJ 357; (2016) 4 JLJR 620
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Rail Police Constable vs State of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-09-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2017) 1 AIR Jhar R 719; (2017) 1 JBCJ 357; (2016) 4 JLJR 620', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/483850/arvind-kumar-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2017) 1 AIR Jhar R 719', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2017) 1 JBCJ 357', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2016) 4 JLJR 620', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ against dismissal for murder of superior officer dismissed; dismissal stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0034)

## Jharkhand Police Trainee Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2017-0026)

**Record:** CW-2017-0026 (compiler id CWC-1042); case GAP3-105-043
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Trainee Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Shree Chandrashekhar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 3991 of 2016
**Judgment:** 2017-06-16 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-09-24 (2009)
**Place:** West Singhbhum, Jharkhand; city town: Chaibasa; police station or unit: Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 419; IPC 420; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Trainee Constable, Jharkhand Police, West Singhbhum (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of trainee constable, appointed 24 September 2009, challenging his dismissal dated 30 May 2011. The court recorded he secured appointment with forged documents, absconded with another person attending duty in his place, and never appeared in the departmental proceeding despite registered-post show cause. The court held his criminal acquittal on 18 September 2015 in Sadar PS Case 69 of 2009, on different evidence four years after dismissal, is no ground to interfere with the departmental order. The dismissal therefore stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the aforesaid facts, finding no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36614982/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Trainee Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-06-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 3991 of 2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36614982/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Single Judge dismissed writ; dismissal for forged-document appointment and absconding upheld despite later acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0026)

## Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2017-0027)

**Record:** CW-2017-0027 (compiler id CWC-1041); case GAP3-105-042
**Title:** Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: S. N. Pathak
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 4430 of 2008
**Judgment:** 2017-07-14 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-04-23 (2004)
**Place:** Deoghar, Jharkhand; city town: Deoghar; police station or unit: Jharkhand Armed Police-5, Deoghar (Chanho Block Camp, Company A); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Armed Police-5, Deoghar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of JAP-5 constable challenging his dismissal dated 30 May 2008 for overstaying ten days leave from 12 to 22 April 2004 by about two years. The court found the enquiry officer rightly held the absence wilful and deliberate, since the mental-illness certificates were belatedly produced and no tuberculosis certificate or leave intimation ever reached the authorities. The court held Article 226 review permits interference only where punishment is shockingly disproportionate, which was not shown, distinguishing precedents on shorter absences. The dismissal therefore stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Resultantly, the impugned order warrants no interference and the writ petition fails and stands dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94307681/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-07-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 4430 of 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94307681/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Single Judge dismissed writ; dismissal for two-year wilful absence upheld under limited Article 226 review.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0027)

## CISF Constable vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2017-0028)

**Record:** CW-2017-0028 (compiler id CWC-1043); case GAP3-105-044
**Title:** CISF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: D. N. Patel; Ratnaker Bhengra
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 204 of 2016 / 2018 (1) AJR 63; (2018) 1 JCR 668
**Judgment:** 2017-08-04 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-06-13 (2007)
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; city town: Dhanbad; police station or unit: CISF Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CISF Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal of CISF constable of the BCCL Dhanbad unit against his removal dated 19 February 2008. The court found three charges proved through a multi-witness enquiry: intoxication on duty, outraging the modesty of a woman during duty hours on 13 June 2007, and incorrigibility from two prior intoxication and one absenteeism punishment. The court held there was no procedural lacuna, with charge sheet, enquiry, pre-penalty hearing and a heard departmental appeal dismissed 30 April 2008, and the Single Judge order of 16 March 2016 committed no error. The removal therefore stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151883941/); 2018 (1) AJR 63; (2018) 1 JCR 668
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** CISF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-08-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2018 (1) AJR 63; (2018) 1 JCR 668', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151883941/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2018 (1) AJR 63', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2018) 1 JCR 668', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench dismissed LPA; CISF removal for on-duty intoxication and outraging modesty upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0028)

## Central Reserve Police Constable and others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2017-0029)

**Record:** CW-2017-0029 (compiler id CWC-1008); case GAP3-105-009
**Title:** Central Reserve Police Constable and others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Aparesh Kumar Singh; B. B. Mangalmurti
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 220 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2017-08-29 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-06-30 (1996)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand; city town: Ranchi; police station or unit: Central Reserve Police Force (posted Ranchi); force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** CRPF Act 1949 s.11(1); CRPF Rules 1955 r.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Central Reserve Police Force (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court Division Bench dismissed the appeal of CRPF Constable against his removal for reporting for Quarter Guard duty in a drunken condition after consuming country-made liquor and for four days of unauthorised absence in 1996. The court held the charges stood proved after full opportunity, noting the petitioner had admitted guilt, and that removal under Section 11(1) read with Rule 27 needed no prosecution under Sections 9/10. It held the penalty was not shockingly disproportionate for a disciplined force. The removal, already affirmed in appeal, on quantum representation and in writ, therefore stands.

> It was also held that the punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Therefore in such circumstances, we find no occasion to interfere in the findings of the writ Court.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/485426/niranjan-sharma-ors-appellant-hash-the-state-of-jharkhand-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Central Reserve Police Constable and others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-08-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'L.P.A. No. 220 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/485426/niranjan-sharma-ors-appellant-hash-the-state-of-jharkhand-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** LPA against CRPF removal for intoxication on duty dismissed; removal stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0029)

## Jharkhand Police Constable v. State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2017-0039)

**Record:** CW-2017-0039 (compiler id CWC-1044); case GAP3-105-045
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Constable v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Anil Kumar Choudhary
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 3946 of 2009 / 2018 (2) AJR 187
**Judgment:** 2017-12-08 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-03-31 (2004)
**Place:** West Singhbhum, Jharkhand; city town: Bara Jamda; police station or unit: Bara Jamda Out Post (Reserve Guard); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Police, Bara Jamda Out Post (Reserve Guard), West Singhbhum (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable, Reserve Guard at Bara Jamda Out Post, West Singhbhum, was dismissed on 24.09.2007 after a departmental enquiry found he was watching TV instead of reporting for his 2-4 pm duty when MCC militants attacked the post on 31.03.2004 and looted nine rifles, a revolver and cartridges. His departmental appeal was rejected on 13.06.2009. The Jharkhand High Court held the Superintendent of Police was competent to dismiss him on proved charges of indiscipline, dereliction and negligence, that the findings were not based on no evidence, and that the punishment was not shocking. The Court found no apparent illegality in the enquiry procedure and dismissed the writ application, so the dismissal stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Certainly a police personnel who meekly surrenders fire arms of police to miscreants armed with simple weapons like knife, lathi(danda) and chain without any resistance is a liability to any police force and such a person is a burden which no efficient police can shoulder.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/135345609/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Constable v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-12-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2018 (2) AJR 187', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/135345609/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; writ dismissed, dismissal for cowardice/negligence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0039)

## Jharkhand Police Constable v. State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2018-0027)

**Record:** CW-2018-0027 (compiler id CWC-1051); case GAP3-106-007
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Constable v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Aparesh Kumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 1707 of 2018
**Judgment:** 2018-09-17 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-02-18 (2005)
**Place:** Dumka, Jharkhand; city town: Dumka; police station or unit: Dumka district police (training at CISF RTC Arkonam); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Police, Dumka (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable, appointed in Dumka in October 2004 and sent for training to CISF Regional Training Centre, Arkonam, absented himself from 18.02.2005, was suspended, and was dismissed on 16.12.2005 after a departmental proceeding found the absconding charge established; his appeal was rejected on 15.03.2011. His defences of his wife's illness and his own treatment did not avail. The Court found he never participated in the enquiry despite repeated notices, the 2011 appellate rejection was merited, and the writ suffered unexplained seven-year delay. Finding no ground for interference, the Court dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The chronology of facts show that the petitioner was dismissed after a disciplinary proceeding on the charges that he had escaped from CISF, Regional Training Centre, Arkonam, Tamilnadu from 18th February 2005 where he was sent on 26th January 2005 only after two months after his appointment on 3rd October 2004. Though petitioner claims to have submitted his joining on 25th September 2005 at Dumka but he never participated in the departmental proceeding despite notices sent to him also at his residential address.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32548032/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Constable v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-09-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 1707 of 2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32548032/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; writ dismissed, dismissal for escaping training upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0027)

## Bokaro Police personnel v. State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2019-0022)

**Record:** CW-2019-0022 (compiler id CWC-1048); case GAP3-106-004
**Title:** Bokaro Police personnel v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Ananda Sen
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 779 of 2016
**Judgment:** 2019-01-07 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated (1996)
**Place:** Bokaro, Jharkhand; city town: Bokaro; police station or unit: Bokaro district police; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Bokaro district police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Police official \[name withheld\] was dismissed on 14.09.1996 by the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro (then in undivided Bihar), after a departmental inquiry found he collected money from truck drivers and declared a false identity when caught red-handed; his appeal (1997) and memorial (1998) were rejected. He sought parity with three others exonerated in the same inquiry. The Court held he had repeatedly failed to appear despite opportunities, the punishment commensurated with the charge and was not disproportionate, and concurrent findings disclosed no illegality. The writ application was dismissed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner was charge sheeted on the ground that he, being a police official, was found collecting money from the truck drivers and when he was caught red-handed, he has declared his false identity and suppressed his actual identity. On this basis, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33569271/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Bokaro Police personnel v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-01-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 779 of 2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33569271/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; writ dismissed, dismissal for extortion upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0022)

## Jharkhand Police Constable (probationer, No. 2029) v. State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2019-0031)

**Record:** CW-2019-0031 (compiler id CWC-1046); case GAP3-106-002
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Constable (probationer, No. 2029) v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Ananda Sen
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 5368 of 2018
**Judgment:** 2019-05-01 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated (1999)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand; city town: Ranchi; police station or unit: Ranchi district police (appointed by SSP Ranchi); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Jharkhand Police Manual R. 668
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (probationer, No. 2029), Jharkhand Police, Ranchi (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. Probationer-constable \[name withheld\] (No. 2029), appointed in Ranchi in 1999, was removed from service on 18.10.2005 under Rule 668 of the Jharkhand Police Manual after being chargesheeted as an absconder in Nawada Muffasil P.S. Case No. 40 of 1999 under Section 302/34 IPC read with Section 27, Arms Act. He sought reinstatement following his acquittal in the criminal case in 2011. The Court held a probationer could be removed without notice, that a benefit-of-doubt acquittal is not an honourable acquittal conferring any right to reinstatement, and that the 13-year delay barred relief. The writ petition was dismissed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The facts are admitted that he was an accused, an absconder and was facing trial under Section 302 and was taken into custody.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175572041/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Constable (probationer, No. 2029) v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-05-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 5368 of 2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175572041/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; writ dismissed, Rule 668 removal upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0031)

## CRPF Constable (General Duty) v. Union of India and Others (CW-2019-0033)

**Record:** CW-2019-0033 (compiler id CWC-1049); case GAP3-106-005
**Title:** CRPF Constable (General Duty) v. Union of India and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Madhuresh Prasad
**Case number / citation:** CWJC No. 7092 of 2015 / AIRONLINE 2019 PAT 1295
**Judgment:** 2019-06-25 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-07-11 (2012)
**Place:** Latehar, Jharkhand; city town: Latehar; police station or unit: 11th Battalion, CRPF, Latehar; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (General Duty), CRPF, 11th Battalion, Latehar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

CRPF Constable (GD) \[name withheld\], 11th Battalion at Latehar, was dismissed on 10.08.2013 for leaving the campus without permission in a Naxal-affected area on 11.07.2012, consuming liquor, and brawling with fellow personnel, misconduct he admitted before the Enquiry Officer. The appellate authority converted dismissal into removal (17.10.2014) and the revision was rejected (17.12.2014). The Patna High Court held the findings rested on admitted facts proved through six witnesses by a confidence-inspiring procedure and required no interference. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The findings of the Disciplinary Authority are based on admitted facts and circumstances, for reasons and by a procedure which inspires confidence. The same does not require any interference in the opinion of this Court.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71444377/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** CRPF Constable (General Duty) v. Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-06-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2019 PAT 1295', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71444377/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; writ dismissed, CRPF removal upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0033)

## Jharkhand Armed Police Constable (Brass No. 759) v. State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2020-0021)

**Record:** CW-2020-0021 (compiler id CWC-1047); case GAP3-106-003
**Title:** Jharkhand Armed Police Constable (Brass No. 759) v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 800 of 2016
**Judgment:** 2020-12-02 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-03-26 (2005)
**Place:** East Singhbhum, Jharkhand; city town: Jamshedpur; police station or unit: TTS Jamshedpur (Golmuri P.S. Case 43 of 2005); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (Brass No. 759), Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP-1), on SOP training at TTS Jamshedpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jamshedpur woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. JAP-1 Constable (Brass No. 759) was dismissed with effect from 31.08.2006 after a departmental enquiry into charges that, while on SOP training at TTS Jamshedpur, he evaded standby duty on Holi (26.03.2005), consumed alcohol, and attempted to rape and molest a village woman, leading to Golmuri P.S. Case 43 of 2005. The Jharkhand High Court held the enquiry gave him full opportunity of hearing, the findings rested on evidence including the Training School Principal's statement, and absence from duty coupled with molestation/attempted rape was serious misconduct. The Court held a person like the petitioner was unfit for a disciplined force and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner was working in a disciplined force and he was to follow the direction of his superiors. The allegation of absenting from duty without any intimation and molestation and trying to rape the girl in the village are serious in nature. The person like the petitioner is not fit to be continued in the disciplined force.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60886169/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Armed Police Constable (Brass No. 759) v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-12-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 800 of 2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "An appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Jharkhand High Court (officers: \[name withheld\], listing date not recorded); the judgment's findings had not been set aside.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://jharkhandhighcourt.nic.in/display_pdf/DAILY_CAUSELIST_22032023.pdf', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'date': None, 'url': 'https://jharkhandhighcourt.nic.in/display_pdf/DAILY_CAUSELIST_22032023.pdf', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60886169/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; writ dismissed, dismissal for Holi-day misconduct upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2020-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0021)

## Satgawan Man vs State of Jharkhand (CW-2022-0003)

**Record:** CW-2022-0003 (compiler id CWC-0181); case EAST---NORTHEAST-003
**Title:** Satgawan Man vs State of Jharkhand
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Cr.) No. 287 of 2017
**Judgment:** 2022-03-24 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2017-03-13 (2017)
**Place:** Koderma, Jharkhand; city town: Satgawan; police station or unit: Satgawan Police Station, Koderma; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Satgawan Police Station, Koderma (1 in record)
**Victims:** Satgawan man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Jharkhand High Court held that a Satgawan man was wrongfully confined by Satgawan police for around 16 hours on 13-14 March 2017. The petitioner alleged he was also beaten after abir/gulal was put on a chowkidar during Holi festivities, but the court held the torture/death question not proved ('How the death has occurred, that has not been proved') and compensated only the Article 21 deprivation of personal liberty: Rs 50,000 within four weeks, recoverable from the erring officers, with civil and criminal remedies for the wrongful confinement expressly preserved. The State's version (UD case, death in hospital, one officer departmentally punished) is on record at para 4. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the deceased was wrongfully deprived of the right of personal liberty by the police authority of the respondent-State for around 16 hours

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9497780/); [sabrangindia.in](https://sabrangindia.in/jharkhand-hc-awards-compensation-illegal-detention-not-custodial-death/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Satgawan Man vs State of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-03-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(Cr.) No. 287 of 2017', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9497780/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sabrangindia.in/jharkhand-hc-awards-compensation-illegal-detention-not-custodial-death/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Jharkhand HC held ~16-hour wrongful confinement by Satgawan police violated Art.21; Rs 50,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0003)

## Karmatand Man vs The State of Jharkhand (CW-2022-0004)

**Record:** CW-2022-0004 (compiler id CWC-0183); case JHARKH-013
**Title:** Karmatand Man vs The State of Jharkhand
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Ananda Sen
**Case number / citation:** B.A. No. 1659 of 2022
**Judgment:** 2022-04-06 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2021-07-01 (2021)
**Place:** Jamtara, Jharkhand; city town: Karmatand; police station or unit: Karmatand Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 306
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Karmatand Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Karmatand man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Jharkhand High Court held that tribal neighbour a Karmatand man had been languishing in custody since 1 July 2021 for committing no offence whatsoever, having been chargesheeted in Karmatand P.S. Case No. 47 of 2021 solely because he sat beside Asha Devi's body after being called by her husband, with no overt act attributed to him in any witness statement. Observing the case shook the Court's faith in the investigating agency, the Court confirmed his interim bail, awarded Rs 50,000 compensation payable within four weeks through the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara, and directed the Director General of Police to sensitize investigating and supervising officers against harassing innocents. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> He has been made to suffer for answering a call of humanity. His liberty was not only threatened, but was taken away by the State, whimsically, without there being any material against him.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16294620/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/ensure-innocents-arent-harassed-whim-investigating-officers-jharkhand-high-court-directs-dgp-196117)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Karmatand Man vs The State of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-04-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'B.A. No. 1659 of 2022', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16294620/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/ensure-innocents-arent-harassed-whim-investigating-officers-jharkhand-high-court-directs-dgp-196117', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Jharkhand HC order verified on Indian Kanoon; innocent man jailed 9 months, Rs 50,000 + DGP sensitization.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0004)

## Rehla Man vs State of Jharkhand (CW-2023-0010)

**Record:** CW-2023-0010 (compiler id CWC-0176); case JHARKH-006
**Title:** Rehla Man vs State of Jharkhand
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Cr.) No. 31 of 2013
**Judgment:** 2023-04-24 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-09-10 (2006)
**Place:** Palamu, Jharkhand; city town: Rehla; police station or unit: Rehla Police Station, Palamu; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Arms Act
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Rehla Police Station, Palamu (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rehla man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. The petitioner's husband was arrested on 10 September 2006 by Rehla police and falsely implicated in an Arms Act case, and subsequently died unnaturally while in custody. Although jail authorities claimed death due to illness, the forensic science laboratory report detected pesticide (monocrotophos) in the viscera, and administrative inquiries confirmed the death occurred in custody. The Jharkhand High Court held that Article 21 was violated at the instance of concerned State officers and that the deceased was wrongfully deprived of his liberty, directing the State of Jharkhand to pay Rs. 2,50,000 compensation to the widow, recoverable from the erring officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the above it transpires that Article-21 of the Constitution of India has been violated at the instance of concerned officer of the respondent-State and the deceased was wrongfully deprived of the right of personal liberty by the police authority.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75956446/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Rehla Man vs State of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-04-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 250,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(Cr.) No. 31 of 2013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75956446/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court awarded Rs 2.5 lakh compensation for custodial death of petitioner's husband falsely implicated under Arms Act by Rehla police.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0010)

## Lesliganj Man vs The State of Jharkhand (CW-2023-0012)

**Record:** CW-2023-0012 (compiler id CWC-0182); case JHARKH-012
**Title:** Lesliganj Man vs The State of Jharkhand
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Cr.) No. 50 of 2017
**Judgment:** 2023-04-26 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-09-09 (2014)
**Place:** Palamu, Jharkhand; city town: Lesliganj; police station or unit: Lesliganj Police Station, Palamu; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Lesliganj Police Station, Palamu; Constable, Lesliganj Police Station, Palamu; Constable, Lesliganj Police Station, Palamu; Constable, Lesliganj Police Station, Palamu (4 in record)
**Victims:** Lesliganj man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Jharkhand High Court (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) held a Lesliganj man was a victim of custodial violence who died in police custody. The OIC-led party had seized him from his home at Lukuwa on 9 September 2014 when his son was absent; photographs and the post-mortem showed multiple injuries, fortifying that death was due to police torture and highhandedness with a concocted suicide story in a perfunctory final form. The Court held Article 21 violated, awarded Rs. 5,00,000 compensation within four weeks recoverable from the erring officers (without precluding civil/criminal remedies), and directed the DGP Jharkhand to reopen and reinvestigate the case against the erring officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The death has occurred due to torture and highhandedness of the police and concocted story of suicide has been made out by the police.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109523448/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=903202898000&title=urmila-devi-vs-state-of-jharkhand)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Lesliganj Man vs The State of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-04-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(Cr.) No. 50 of 2017', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109523448/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=903202898000&title=urmila-devi-vs-state-of-jharkhand', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: custodial death by torture found; Rs 5 lakh + DGP reinvestigation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0012)

## Ranchi Man v. State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2023-0015)

**Record:** CW-2023-0015 (compiler id CWC-0761); case SWILLEGA-013; aliases: CWC-0178; CWC-0586; CWC-0659
**Title:** Ranchi Man v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Cr.) No. 226 of 2014 / 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 17
**Judgment:** 2023-06-21 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-02-14 (2014)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand; city town: Ranchi; police station or unit: Chutia Police Station / Bundu Police Station, Ranchi; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226; IPC 376D; IPC 302; IPC 201; IPC 34; CrPC s.164
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Chutia Police Station, Ranchi; Officer-in-Charge, Bundu Police Station, Ranchi; Investigating Officer, Ranchi Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Ranchi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Jharkhand High Court held that student a Ranchi man was falsely implicated in a murder, gang-rape and burning case after a burnt female body near NH-33 was wrongly identified as the survivor, and remained in custody from 14 February to 27 July 2014 on a confessional statement alone. the survivor was later found alive and gave a Section 164 statement, following which police filed a final form recording mistake of fact and the petitioner was discharged. The Court noted the DGP had suspended three officers including the Investigating Officer and both Officers-in-Charge and ordered a CID probe and departmental proceedings. Holding the entire prosecution malicious and the Article 21 violation admitted, the Court awarded Rs 5,00,000 public-law compensation, open to recovery from the erring officers' salaries. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the case in hand, admittedly, the petitioner was illegally arrested and thereafter he has been discharged on the submission of final form by the police, accordingly, the case of compensation is made out.

**Sources (6):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/5-lakhs-compensation-478422.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jharkhand-high-court/jharkhand-high-court-compensation-wrongful-detention-police-misconduct-231359); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/ajit-kumar-v-state-of-jharkhandwatermark-1515355.pdf); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/jharkhand-high-court-directs-state-pay-compensation-5-lakh-man-illegally-detained-police-in-false-case); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/five-lakh-compensation-to-man-illegally-detained-for-four-months-1482368); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/06/27/jharkhand-high-court-directs-compensation-illegal-detention-by-police/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Ranchi Man v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-06-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 17', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/5-lakhs-compensation-478422.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jharkhand-high-court/jharkhand-high-court-compensation-wrongful-detention-police-misconduct-231359', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/ajit-kumar-v-state-of-jharkhandwatermark-1515355.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/jharkhand-high-court-directs-state-pay-compensation-5-lakh-man-illegally-detained-police-in-false-case', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/five-lakh-compensation-to-man-illegally-detained-for-four-months-1482368', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/06/27/jharkhand-high-court-directs-compensation-illegal-detention-by-police/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Jharkhand HC held student a Ranchi man falsely implicated in murder/gang-rape case with ~4 months' illegal detention, awarding Rs 5,00,000 compensation recoverable from erring officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0015)

## Dhanbad Man and Ors. vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (CW-2023-0017)

**Record:** CW-2023-0017 (compiler id CWC-0173); case SWCUSTOD-014
**Title:** Dhanbad Man and Ors. vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Cr.) No. 48 of 2017
**Judgment:** 2023-07-03 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2015-06-23 (2015)
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; city town: Dhanbad; police station or unit: Ghanudih Outpost, Jharia Police Station, Dhanbad; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; IPC 302; IPC 201; CrPC s.176(1A)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Ghanudih Outpost, Jharia PS, Dhanbad; Munshi, Ghanudih Outpost, Jharia PS, Dhanbad (2 in record)
**Victims:** Dhanbad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Dhanbad man was taken into custody on 23 June 2015 by the Munshi of Ghanudih Outpost at the instance of the Officer-in-Charge, and was found dead the following morning inside the police lockup bearing severe physical injuries. A judicial inquiry by the CJM Dhanbad confirmed that the victim died in police custody due to police torture, despite police claims of suicide by hanging. Exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the Jharkhand High Court held the State liable for violation of human rights and awarded Rs. 5,00,000 compensation to the deceased's widow and children, directing the Director General of Police to initiate departmental proceedings against the erring police officials with liberty to recover the compensation from them. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> State is bound for compensation for violation of human rights as death was occurred in police custody by the torture of the police officials.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58705178/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jharkhand-high-court/jharkhand-high-court-5-lakh-compensation-widow-custodial-death-victim-232025); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/state-bound-for-compensation-for-violation-of-human-rights-for-custodial-death-1484101)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Dhanbad Man and Ors. vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-07-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(Cr.) No. 48 of 2017', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58705178/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jharkhand-high-court/jharkhand-high-court-5-lakh-compensation-widow-custodial-death-victim-232025', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/state-bound-for-compensation-for-violation-of-human-rights-for-custodial-death-1484101', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation and directed departmental proceedings for custodial death of a Dhanbad man due to torture at Ghanudih police outpost.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0017)

## Piri Village Man v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (CW-2023-0022)

**Record:** CW-2023-0022 (compiler id CWC-0180); case SWFAKEEN-017; aliases: CWC-1319
**Title:** Piri Village Man v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Cr.) No. 402 of 2021 / 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 29
**Judgment:** 2023-08-14 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2021-06-12 (2021)
**Place:** Latehar, Jharkhand; city town: Piri village; police station or unit: Garu Police Station (Garu P.S. Case No. 11 of 2022); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police firing party, Garu Police Station area, Latehar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Piri village man, age 24 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. On 12 June 2021, 24-year-old tribal villager was shot dead near Piri village, Latehar, while hunting with fellow villagers for the Nem Sarhul festival; the hunters pleaded they were villagers, not Maoists, but security forces fired without warning. The State admitted the death was caused by a police bullet, yet the CID closed the FIR against the named police officials as a mistake of fact. The High Court held the closure report lacked bona fide, set it aside, and ordered de novo investigation by a fresh team within three months. It directed the State to pay Rs 5,00,000 compensation to the widow within four weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Now it has been admitted that death has occurred due to the firing of the police that too innocent villager has been killed in the State of Jharkhand, where it has been claimed that the Tribals are being protected.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/jiramani-final-judgment-487985.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/latehar-encounter-jharkhand-high-court-fresh-investigation-5-lakh-compensation-wife-of-deceased-tribal-man-235813); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/jharkhand-high-court-orders-fresh-probe-police-killing-tribal-youth-orders-5-lakh-compensation-wife); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144029226/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Piri Village Man v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Audit fix: duplicate record CW-2023-0049 (same court, case number and judgment date) merged into this record; its sources are kept here and its URL redirects here.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-08-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 29', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-25
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/jiramani-final-judgment-487985.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/latehar-encounter-jharkhand-high-court-fresh-investigation-5-lakh-compensation-wife-of-deceased-tribal-man-235813', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/jharkhand-high-court-orders-fresh-probe-police-killing-tribal-youth-orders-5-lakh-compensation-wife', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Admitted police-bullet killing of tribal hunter; closure set aside, de novo probe, Rs 5L to widow.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0022)

## Garu Man v. State of Jharkhand (CW-2023-0048)

**Record:** CW-2023-0048 (compiler id CWC-1317); case SWDISPRO-022
**Title:** Garu Man v. State of Jharkhand
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
**Case number / citation:** 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 29
**Judgment:** 2023-08-14 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2021-06-12 (2021)
**Place:** Latehar, Jharkhand; city town: Garu; police station or unit: Garu Police Station area; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Garu man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Jharkhand High Court held it established and admitted that tribal villager a Garu man died of police firing during a 12 June 2021 hunting expedition near Piri village, Latehar, where security personnel allegedly fired without warning, shot him again across the river and falsely implicated villagers. Finding the CID closure of the case against named police officials lacking in bona fide and at least section 304 IPC applicable, the Court set it aside and ordered a de novo investigation by a fresh untainted team. It awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation to widow \[name withheld\] while declining a CBI probe. Individual culpability awaits the fresh investigation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of Annexure-D, it is an admitted fact that Bramhadeo Singh died due to bullet injury caused by the police. The FIR has already been registered against the erring police officials and the case has been closed saying the mistake of facts and in view of the admitted position, at least Section 304 IPC is made out, however, the CID has chosen to come to the conclusion to give a clean chit to the erring police officials.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144029226/ or the LiveLaw judgment PDF https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/jiramani-final-judgment-487985.pdf); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/jharkhand-high-court-orders-fresh-probe-police-killing-tribal-youth-orders-5-lakh-compensation-wife)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Garu Man v. State of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['primary_source_url'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-08-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 29', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144029226/ or the LiveLaw judgment PDF https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/jiramani-final-judgment-487985.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/jharkhand-high-court-orders-fresh-probe-police-killing-tribal-youth-orders-5-lakh-compensation-wife', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Jharkhand HC set aside closure, ordered de novo probe and Rs 5L; at least s.304 made out; CBI declined.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0048](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0048)

## Ranchi Man vs Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Sub Zone, Ranchi (CW-2023-0052)

**Record:** CW-2023-0052 (compiler id CWC-1052); case GAP3-107-001
**Title:** Ranchi Man vs Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Sub Zone, Ranchi
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Cr.) No. 623 of 2023 / 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 40
**Judgment:** 2023-09-06 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2015-10-06 (2015)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand; city town: Ranchi; police station or unit: NCB Sub Zone, Ranchi; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** NDPS Act 1985 s.8/18(b); NDPS Act 1985 s.58; CrPC s.321; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, NCB Sub Zone, Ranchi; Police personnel, NCB Sub Zone, Ranchi; Police personnel, NCB Sub Zone, Ranchi; Police personnel, NCB Sub Zone, Ranchi; Police personnel, NCB Sub Zone, Ranchi; Police personnel, NCB Sub Zone, Ranchi; Police personnel, NCB Sub Zone, Ranchi (7 in record)
**Victims:** Ranchi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 8 lakh (Rs 8,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Jharkhand High Court found that a Ranchi man, a dhaba waiter arrested at Barachatti (Gaya, \[name withheld\]) on 6 October 2015, spent about eight years in jail for a crime he did not commit after NCB officials falsely implicated him in an NDPS case. The court noted the NCB itself had twice sought withdrawal of the prosecution under s.321 CrPC, conceding the false implication, and that eight NCB officials had been charge-sheeted under s.58 of the NDPS Act. It quashed the FIR, cognizance order and trial proceedings, ordered the petitioner's forthwith release, and awarded Rs 8 lakh compensation payable through the ADG, NCB Sub Zone Ranchi, recoverable from the erring officials if found guilty. The court held the illegal confinement violated Article 21 and was a proved case of atrocity. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the above facts and the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, it appears that the petitioner has falsely been made accused in the instant case which was found to be false by none other than the agency which has implicated the petitioner.

**Sources (4):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/displayphp-5-1540383.pdf); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64ff8dc7f6fa7f68ca4a3b7f); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/ncb-directed-to-pay-8-lakhs-compensation-to-wrongful-detainee-jharkhand-high-court-orders-immediate-release-1493932); [lawtrend.in](https://lawtrend.in/jharkhand-hc-fines-ncb-for-putting-man-behind-bars-in-false-case/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Ranchi Man vs Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Sub Zone, Ranchi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-09-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 800,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 40', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/displayphp-5-1540383.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64ff8dc7f6fa7f68ca4a3b7f', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/ncb-directed-to-pay-8-lakhs-compensation-to-wrongful-detainee-jharkhand-high-court-orders-immediate-release-1493932', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawtrend.in/jharkhand-hc-fines-ncb-for-putting-man-behind-bars-in-false-case/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified; HC quashed false NDPS case and ordered Rs 8L compensation; NCB is a central agency exercising police powers under the NDPS Act (force coded central_armed as closest value).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0052](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0052)

## X vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (CW-2024-0039)

**Record:** CW-2024-0039 (compiler id CWC-0880); case GAP2-48-003
**Title:** X vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: S. N. Pathak
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 2250 of 2021
**Judgment:** 2024-06-19 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2017-07-10 (2017)
**Place:** Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; city town: Churchu; police station or unit: Churchu Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Jharkhand Service Code Rule 23; Jharkhand Police Manual Rule 707
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Churchu Police Station, Hazaribagh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a Hazaribagh constable's writ petition challenging his dismissal from service. The court held that his admitted live-in relationship with a woman other than his wife, while married with two children, violated Rule 23 of the Service Code read with Rule 707 of the Police Manual and was unbecoming of police personnel. It further held that his acquittal in the related criminal case (Daru P.S. Case No. 29 of 2016) could not unsettle the concurrent findings of the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities. Finding no procedural flaw, the court sustained the dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is unbecoming of a police personnel who was in live-in-relation with another lady other than wife and amounts to violation of rules whereby the service conditions of the petitioner are governed.

**Sources (2):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/x-v-the-state-of-jharkhand-1637771.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/x-v-the-state-of-jharkhand-wps-no-2250-of-2021-jharkhand-high-court-1543899)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7(iii)
**display title redacted:** X vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-06-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 2250 of 2021', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/x-v-the-state-of-jharkhand-1637771.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/x-v-the-state-of-jharkhand-wps-no-2250-of-2021-jharkhand-high-court-1543899', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld constable's dismissal for admitted live-in relationship violating service rules; criminal acquittal immaterial.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0039)

## Garu Man vs State of Jharkhand and Ors. (CW-2024-0010)

**Record:** CW-2024-0010 (compiler id CWC-0762); case SWCUSTOD-002; aliases: CWC-0179; CWC-1463
**Title:** Garu Man vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Ananda Sen
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Cr.) No. 509 of 2022 / 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 105
**Judgment:** 2024-06-22 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-01-01 (2022)
**Place:** Latehar, Jharkhand; city town: Garu; police station or unit: Garu Police Station, Latehar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Garu Police Station, Latehar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Garu man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Garu man was forcibly taken from his home in 2022 by Garu police led by SI, confined at the police station for three days and mercilessly assaulted with lathis to coerce an admission of helping naxals, then released when police realised he was the wrong person — facts the Court recorded as admitted by the State. The police had submitted a chargesheet against the SI and other officials, and the State had sanctioned only Rs 50,000 as compensation. The High Court held that Rs 50,000 was inadequate for such arbitrary torture of a citizen against whom there was no material, enhanced compensation to Rs 5,00,000 payable by the State within two weeks, and directed recovery of the amount from the torturing officials within two months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The police officials in most arbitrary manner had taken law in their hands and had tortured a poor citizen of this Country without there being any material against him.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/1719927546984-547559.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jharkhand-high-court/jharkhand-high-court-orders-5-lakh-compensation-victim-police-brutality-wrongly-taken-custody-tortured-directs-recovery-from-accused-officer-262202); [lawtrend.in](https://lawtrend.in/jharkhand-high-court-directs-compensation-of-rs-5-lakh-to-police-brutality-victim-funds-to-be-recovered-from-officer/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Garu Man vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-06-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 105', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/1719927546984-547559.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jharkhand-high-court/jharkhand-high-court-orders-5-lakh-compensation-victim-police-brutality-wrongly-taken-custody-tortured-directs-recovery-from-accused-officer-262202', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawtrend.in/jharkhand-high-court-directs-compensation-of-rs-5-lakh-to-police-brutality-victim-funds-to-be-recovered-from-officer/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court held the petitioner was illegally taken into custody and tortured for three days in a mistaken-identity case and enhanced compensation to Rs 5 lakh, recoverable from the torturing officials.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0010)

## The State of Jharkhand vs RPF Constable (CW-2024-0042)

**Record:** CW-2024-0042 (compiler id CWC-0878); case GAP2-48-001
**Title:** The State of Jharkhand vs RPF Constable
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Ananda Sen; Gautam Kumar Choudhary
**Case number / citation:** Death Reference No. 4 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 588 of 2023 / 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 154
**Judgment:** 2024-09-19 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-08-17 (2019)
**Place:** Ramgarh, Jharkhand; city town: Barkakana; police station or unit: RPF Post, Barkakana, Ramgarh; force: railway
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307; Arms Act 1959 s.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, RPF Post, Barkakana (1 in record)
**Victims:** Barkakana man, age 55; Barkakana woman, age 39; Barkakana woman, age 32; Barkakana woman; Barkakana man (5 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 25 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. On 17 August 2019 RPF constable, posted at Barkakana, opened indiscriminate fire with his service pistol on his neighbour milk-supplier's unarmed family when asked for milk dues, killing three members including a pregnant woman and injuring two. The trial court convicted him under sections 302 and 307 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to death. The Jharkhand High Court upheld the murder convictions, held section 27 Arms Act was not attracted to a licensed service pistol, answered the death reference in the negative, and commuted the sentence to rigorous imprisonment of not less than 25 years without remission plus fines. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The victims were unarmed persons, whereas the appellant was a Constable in RPF who resorted to indiscriminate firing by service pistol.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/display-1-563724.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jharkhand-high-court/jharkhand-high-court-firing-unlicensed-prohibited-arms-invites-conviction-under-section-27-arms-act-not-service-pistol-271366); [lawtrend.in](https://lawtrend.in/jharkhand-rpf-constable-sentenced-to-death-for-killing-three-of-family/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** The State of Jharkhand vs RPF Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Jharkhand High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Jharkhand High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 154', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-09-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 154', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/display-1-563724.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jharkhand-high-court/jharkhand-high-court-firing-unlicensed-prohibited-arms-invites-conviction-under-section-27-arms-act-not-service-pistol-271366', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawtrend.in/jharkhand-rpf-constable-sentenced-to-death-for-killing-three-of-family/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** RPF constable's triple-murder conviction upheld; death commuted to 25 years RI without remission.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0042](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0042)

## Ranchi Man vs State of Jharkhand (CW-2024-0019)

**Record:** CW-2024-0019 (compiler id CWC-0174); case JHARKH-004
**Title:** Ranchi Man vs State of Jharkhand
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: M.S. Ramachandra Rao; Deepak Roshan
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A. No. 187 of 2015
**Judgment:** 2024-11-18 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-06-29 (2012)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand; city town: Ranchi; police station or unit: Custody guard, RINPAS Ranchi, Jharkhand Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Custody guard, RINPAS Ranchi, Jharkhand Police; Constable, Custody guard, RINPAS Ranchi, Jharkhand Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** Ranchi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 4 lakh (Rs 4,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Ranchi man, an undertrial prisoner remanded in judicial custody and admitted to RINPAS Ranchi for psychotic depression, escaped on 29 June 2012 when the two police constables deputed to guard him were absent from their posts, and was found dead later that day on a railway track. Overruling the Single Judge's dismissal, the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the deceased was in legal custody and that the State had failed in its constitutional duty to protect his life. The High Court directed the State of Jharkhand to pay Rs. 4,00,000 compensation to the deceased's widow under Article 226. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus, from the facts narrated herein above, it is crystal clear that due to the negligence of the two constables who were deputed for custody of the husband of the petitioner, who was suffering from "Psychotic Depression", the appellant's husband escaped and finally his dead body was found.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54706713/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75455348/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Ranchi Man vs State of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-11-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 400,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'L.P.A. No. 187 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54706713/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75455348/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench set aside writ court dismissal and awarded Rs 4 lakh compensation for death of undertrial who escaped RINPAS custody due to constable negligence.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0019)

## Ranchi Police Officer In-Charge and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Others (CW-2024-0023)

**Record:** CW-2024-0023 (compiler id CWC-0607); case SWILLEGA-028; aliases: CWC-1443
**Title:** Ranchi Police Officer In-Charge and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: M.S. Ramachandra Rao; Deepak Roshan
**Case number / citation:** Cont. Case (Civil) No. 387 of 2024
**Judgment:** 2024-12-17 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-02-29 (2024)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand; city town: Ranchi; police station or unit: Jagarnathpur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 419; IPC 420; IPC 469; IPC 34; CrPC 41; CrPC 41A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer In-Charge, Jagarnathpur Police Station, Ranchi; Additional Sub-Inspector, Jagarnathpur Police Station, Ranchi (2 in record)
**Victims:** Ranchi man, age 34; Ranchi man, age 36 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.083 yrs; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. Instakart/Flipkart officials a Ranchi man and a Ranchi man were arrested on 29-02-2024 in FIR 88/2024 for sub-seven-year offences without any Section 41-A CrPC notice or preliminary inquiry, and kept in custody till bail on 16-03-2024. The Division Bench held the officers in brazen, wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court's Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil directions. Both officers were held guilty of contempt and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment with Rs. 2,000 fine each, the sentence suspended four weeks to approach the Supreme Court. Disciplinary action was ordered within six months of release, costs of Rs. 50,000 each were awarded to the petitioners, and a separate compensation claim was left open.

> The Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 are held guilty of contempt of court for willfully disobeying the directions contained in the above decisions and both of them are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of one month with fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand).

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/irshadandanrvstateofjharkhandors-1-577958.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jharkhand-high-court/jharkhand-high-court-sentences-police-officials-unlawful-arrest-flipkart-employees-arnesh-kumar-guidelines-ignored-279172); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/jharkhand-high-court-holds-two-cops-guilty-illegal-arrests-flipkart-employees)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 71
**display title redacted:** Ranchi Police Officer In-Charge and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-12-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Cont. Case (Civil) No. 387 of 2024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "An appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], listing date not recorded); the judgment's findings had not been set aside.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/1880/1880_2025_22_30_60669_Order_09-May-2025.pdf', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-09-26', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 26 September 2025, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/cl/2025-09-26/M_R_1.pdf', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': None, 'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/1880/1880_2025_22_30_60669_Order_09-May-2025.pdf', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}; {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2025-09-26', 'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/cl/2025-09-26/M_R_1.pdf', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/irshadandanrvstateofjharkhandors-1-577958.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jharkhand-high-court/jharkhand-high-court-sentences-police-officials-unlawful-arrest-flipkart-employees-arnesh-kumar-guidelines-ignored-279172', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/jharkhand-high-court-holds-two-cops-guilty-illegal-arrests-flipkart-employees', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: both officers convicted of contempt; 1-month SI + fine; costs Rs.1 lakh.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2024-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0023)

## Hazaribagh Police Armed police personnel vs The State Of Jharkhand (CW-2025-0070)

**Record:** CW-2025-0070 (compiler id CWC-1365); case cop-jh-hc-6
**Title:** Hazaribagh Police Armed police personnel vs The State Of Jharkhand
**Court:** High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; judges: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 2580 of 2017
**Judgment:** 2025-05-02 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-01-04 (2005)
**Place:** Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; police station or unit: JAP-7, Hazaribagh; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed police personnel, JAP-7, Hazaribagh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court held that the armed-police staffer declined assigned duty on 04.01.2005 and stayed away, with four prior penalties for overstay and absence on record. The High Court held that the case was one of refusal of duty rather than overstay of sanctioned leave. The High Court held that the delayed memorial under the Police Manual gave no ground to reopen the penalty. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.

> Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4836846/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** final paragraph
**display title redacted:** Hazaribagh Police Armed police personnel vs The State Of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-05-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'disciplinary upheld', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 2580 of 2017', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4836846/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** None; all claims verified. Neutral citation 2025:JHHC:13275 exists and could be added (record shows null).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0070](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0070)

## Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State Of Jharkhand (CW-2025-0069)

**Record:** CW-2025-0069 (compiler id CWC-1364); case cop-jh-hc-5
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State Of Jharkhand
**Court:** High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; judges: Deepak Roshan
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 779 of 2013 / 2025:JHHC:24800
**Judgment:** 2025-08-19 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-08-24 (2007)
**Place:** Jharkhand; police station or unit: JAP-6 Jamshedpur; rail unit Daltonganj; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, JAP-6 Jamshedpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court held that the constable reported for duty on 24.08.2007 in an intoxicated condition, abused staff, and fled from hospital during medical examination. The High Court held that the doctor's note of alcoholic smell with oral testimony corroborated the charge despite the absence of a blood test. The High Court held that a prior record of habitual misconduct supported the penalty. The High Court dismissed the writ application and denied reinstatement.

> no relief can be granted to the Petitioner

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156852770/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** operative findings paragraph
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State Of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-08-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'disciplinary upheld', 'source': '2025:JHHC:24800', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156852770/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** None; all claims verified including intoxication incident of 24.08.2007, removal order dated 30.11.2007, and quoted sentence.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0069](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0069)

## Jharkhand Police Not stated; uniformed member vs The State Of Jharkhand (CW-2025-0068)

**Record:** CW-2025-0068 (compiler id CWC-1363); case cop-jh-hc-4
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Not stated; uniformed member vs The State Of Jharkhand
**Court:** High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; judges: Deepak Roshan
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 1637 of 2018
**Judgment:** 2025-09-09 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jharkhand; police station or unit: State police; petitioner described as Secretary of Police Men's Association; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Not stated; uniformed member, State police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court held that the uniformed staffer had joined a coordinated mass leave and incited colleagues while holding weaponry and shouting slogans. The High Court held that the compulsory retirement imposed after the departmental enquiry was supported by the record. The High Court held that an earlier writ (WPS No. 4872 of 2008) had already left the penalty undisturbed. The High Court dismissed the writ application.

> instant application stands dismissed

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116509259/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** final paragraph
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Not stated; uniformed member vs The State Of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-09-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'disciplinary upheld', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 1637 of 2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116509259/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** None; all claims verified. Neutral citation 2025:JHHC:27410 exists and could be added (record shows null).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0068](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0068)

## Chainpur Man vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (CW-2025-0029)

**Record:** CW-2025-0029 (compiler id CWC-0175); case JHARKH-005
**Title:** Chainpur Man vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Tarlok Singh Chauhan; Rajesh Shankar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(PIL) No. 7140 of 2025
**Judgment:** 2025-12-08 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-12-01 (2025)
**Place:** Gumla, Jharkhand; city town: Chainpur; police station or unit: Chainpur Police Station, Gumla; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Chainpur Police Station, Gumla (Officer-in-Charge; suspended); Police Sub-Inspector, Chainpur Police Station, Gumla (sent to police lines); Assistant Sub-Inspector, Chainpur Police Station, Gumla (sent to police lines); Assistant Sub-Inspector, Chainpur Police Station, Gumla (sent to police lines) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chainpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Jharkhand High Court records the following account. A Chainpur man was detained on 1 December 2025 without an FIR or any criminal case against him and subjected to brutal physical torture within the premises of Chainpur Police Station, Gumla. An inquiry by the SDPO confirmed the illegal detention and custodial beating, leading to the suspension of the Officer-in-Charge. The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court condemned the cowardly torture in police custody and directed the State of Jharkhand to pay Rs. 1,00,000 in interim compensation to the victim, with express directions that the amount be recovered from the erring police officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, we direct the respondent State to pay, by way of interim compensation a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lakh only) within one week to the petitioner which, at the first instance, shall be paid by the State Government but shall thereafter be recovered from the erring officials/officers.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39272848/); [thejharkhandstory.co.in](https://thejharkhandstory.co.in/jharkhand-hc-orders-%E2%82%B91-lakh-compensation-directs-dgp-to-act-after-shocking-custodial-torture-of-kayum-chaudhary/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Chainpur Man vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-12-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(PIL) No. 7140 of 2025', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39272848/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://thejharkhandstory.co.in/jharkhand-hc-orders-%E2%82%B91-lakh-compensation-directs-dgp-to-act-after-shocking-custodial-torture-of-kayum-chaudhary/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench entered adverse finding of custodial torture and awarded Rs 1 lakh interim compensation recoverable from erring officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0029)

## Ichagarh Man vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (CW-2025-0050)

**Record:** CW-2025-0050 (compiler id CWC-0883); case GAP2-48-006
**Title:** Ichagarh Man vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
**Court:** Jharkhand High Court; judges: Tarlok Singh Chauhan; Rajesh Shankar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025
**Judgment:** 2025-12-11 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-11-19 (2025)
**Place:** Seraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand; city town: Ichagarh; police station or unit: Ichagarh Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector (Officer-in-Charge), Ichagarh Police Station; Officer-in-Charge, Tiruldih Police Station; Officer-in-Charge, Nimdih Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Ichagarh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Treating a wife's letter as a suo motu PIL, the Jharkhand High Court examined the pre-dawn pickup and alleged custodial torture of an Ichagarh man at Ichagarh police station on 19-11-2025. The court described the alleged police conduct as unprecedented, noted CCTV cameras were never installed despite the Supreme Court's mandate, and treated the SP's suspension order as prima facie acknowledgment of lapses by the officers-in-charge of Ichagarh, Tiruldih and Nimdih police stations. Relying on Nilabati Behera, D.K. Basu and Sube Singh, it directed Rs 1,50,000 interim compensation within one week, recoverable from the erring officials, and kept the PIL pending for further orders.

> This is probably a most unprecedented demonizing behavior on the part of the police perhaps one of the worst crime in a civilized society governed by the rule of law.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175992496/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** Ichagarh Man vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-12-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Jharkhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Jharkhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(PIL) No. 7197 of 2025', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175992496/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Suo motu PIL: HC found prima facie custodial torture at Ichagarh PS, ordered Rs 1.5L interim compensation; PIL continues.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0050](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0050)

## Dhanbad Police Constable vs The State Of Jharkhand (CW-2026-0084)

**Record:** CW-2026-0084 (compiler id CWC-1362); case cop-jh-hc-3
**Title:** Dhanbad Police Constable vs The State Of Jharkhand
**Court:** High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; judges: Sujit Narayan Prasad; Rajesh Kumar
**Case number / citation:** L.P.A No. 303 of 2024 / 2026:JHHC:96-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-01-05 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-07-29 (2013)
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand; police station or unit: Dhanbad district police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Dhanbad district police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court held that the constable had fired 11 rounds in the air from his service AK-47 rifle on 29.07.2013. The High Court held that indiscipline and carelessness with a service weapon justified disciplinary action despite a plea of mental imbalance and insomnia. The High Court held that conversion of removal into compulsory retirement needed no interference. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge order dated 16.02.2024.

> the present appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196899833/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** final paragraph
**display title redacted:** Dhanbad Police Constable vs The State Of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-01-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'disciplinary upheld', 'source': '2026:JHHC:96-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196899833/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** None; all claims verified including firing of 11 rounds from AK-47 on 29.07.2013, converted penalty, and final order.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0084](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0084)

## Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State Of Jharkhand (CW-2026-0083)

**Record:** CW-2026-0083 (compiler id CWC-1361); case cop-jh-hc-2
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State Of Jharkhand
**Court:** High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; judges: Ananda Sen
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 5503 of 2022
**Judgment:** 2026-01-13 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-12-06 (2012)
**Place:** Jharkhand; police station or unit: Not stated; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, State police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court held that the police constable absented himself from duty from 06.12.2012 and ignored notices and enquiry proceedings. The High Court held that the departmental finding of prolonged unauthorized absence stood established ex parte. The High Court held that removal was fitting for a uniformed staffer and no violation of natural justice was shown. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.

> this writ petition stands dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66086257/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** final paragraph
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs The State Of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-01-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'disciplinary upheld', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 5503 of 2022', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66086257/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** None; all claims verified. Neutral citation 2026:JHHC:858 exists and could be added (record shows null).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0083](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0083)

## Jharkhand Police Constable vs State Of Jharkhand (CW-2026-0082)

**Record:** CW-2026-0082 (compiler id CWC-1360); case cop-jh-hc-1
**Title:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs State Of Jharkhand
**Court:** High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; judges: Ananda Sen
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 2136 of 2023
**Judgment:** 2026-02-18 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jharkhand; police station or unit: Bagbera police station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bagbera police station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court held that the constable deputed for treasure escort duty had left his rifle in the guardroom and remained absent. The High Court held that opportunity was given to participate in the departmental enquiry but the constable did not appear. The High Court held that a delayed appeal filed after sixteen years gave no ground to interfere. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the removal.

> Opportunity was given to the petitioner but he did not appear before the Enquiry Committee.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25925037/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** operative findings paragraph
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Police Constable vs State Of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-02-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'disciplinary upheld', 'source': 'W.P.(S) No. 2136 of 2023', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25925037/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** None; all claims verified. Neutral citation 2026:JHHC:5100 exists and could be added (record shows null).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0082](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0082)

## Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State Of Jharkhand (CW-2026-0081)

**Record:** CW-2026-0081 (compiler id CWC-1359); case cop-jh-hc-0
**Title:** Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State Of Jharkhand
**Court:** High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; judges: Ananda Sen
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(S) No. 1702 of 2026 / 2026:JHHC:7904
**Judgment:** 2026-03-18 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jharkhand; police station or unit: Jharkhand Armed Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Armed Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court held that the constable had suppressed a pending criminal case when entering police service. The High Court held that a later acquittal in October 2025 did not automatically undo a dismissal founded on suppression of material facts. The High Court held that there was a distinction between dismissal for a criminal charge and dismissal for suppression. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and kept the removal in place.

> He was dismissed on the charge that he has suppressed the pendency of criminal case.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34982875/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** operative findings paragraph
**display title redacted:** Jharkhand Armed Police Constable vs The State Of Jharkhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-03-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'disciplinary upheld', 'source': '2026:JHHC:7904', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34982875/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Penalty misstated: judgment uses 'dismissal' (order dated 08.08.2019), not 'removal from service'.; Quoted sentence is not verbatim: the recorded text is only a clause inside a longer sentence in para 6, not a standalone sentence; the verified verbatim sentence is 'He was dismissed on the charge that he has suppressed the pendency of criminal case.' (para 7).; Appeal upheld 29.03.2020 and revision 19.11.2020 (judgment also shows 09.11.2020 in one para) — dates otherwise confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0081](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0081)

## State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs Garhwa District Police Constable & Ors. (CW-2026-0021)

**Record:** CW-2026-0021 (compiler id CWC-0177); case SWOTHERM-015; aliases: CWC-1462
**Title:** State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs Garhwa District Police Constable & Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Ahsanuddin Amanullah; R. Mahadevan
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 7364 of 2026 / 2026 INSC 466
**Judgment:** 2026-05-08 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-05-18 (2005)
**Place:** Garhwa, Jharkhand; city town: Garhwa; police station or unit: Garhwa District Police, Jharkhand Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 142
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ranjan Kumar @ Santosh Kumar (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Ranjan Kumar was appointed as a constable in Jharkhand Police in Garhwa district in 2005 and subsequently secured a second constable appointment in Bihar Police under the assumed name 'Santosh Kumar' using fabricated documents. Departmental inquiry revealed the fraud and he was dismissed in 2010, but the Jharkhand High Court Division Bench interfered with the dismissal. The Supreme Court reversed the Division Bench, restored the constable's dismissal from Jharkhand Police, quashed his appointment in Bihar Police under Article 142, and directed the DGPs of both states to initiate criminal proceedings. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Public employment, particularly in the police service, cannot be converted into an instrument of fraud.

**Sources (6):** [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2026/may/state-of-jharkhand-vs-ranjan-kumar-23); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/the-state-of-jharkhand-ors-v-ranjan-kumar-ors-2026-insc-466-impersonation-1613679); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-orders-criminal-action-against-constable-who-joined-bihar-jharkhand-police-in-different-names-533562); [courtbook.in](https://courtbook.in/posts/supreme-court-jharkhand-constable-fake-identity-bihar-police-dismissal); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-orders-dismissal-of-cop-who-joined-bihar-and-jharkhand-police-under-different-names); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/05/12/sc-restores-police-constables-dismissal-for-securing-appointment-through-fraud/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs Garhwa District Police Constable & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-05-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2026 INSC 466', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2026/may/state-of-jharkhand-vs-ranjan-kumar-23', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/the-state-of-jharkhand-ors-v-ranjan-kumar-ors-2026-insc-466-impersonation-1613679', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-orders-criminal-action-against-constable-who-joined-bihar-jharkhand-police-in-different-names-533562', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://courtbook.in/posts/supreme-court-jharkhand-constable-fake-identity-bihar-police-dismissal', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-orders-dismissal-of-cop-who-joined-bihar-and-jharkhand-police-under-different-names', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/05/12/sc-restores-police-constables-dismissal-for-securing-appointment-through-fraud/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court reversed High Court Division Bench, restoring dismissal of constable who fraudulently joined Bihar Police under an alias while serving in Jharkhand Police.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0021)

## State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jharkhand Police Constable and others (CW-2026-0048)

**Record:** CW-2026-0048 (compiler id CWC-0916); case GAP2-60-007
**Title:** State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jharkhand Police Constable and others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Ahsanuddin Amanullah; R. Mahadevan
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 7364 of 2026 \[arising out of SLP (C) No. 6111 of 2023\] / 2026 INSC 466; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 824
**Judgment:** 2026-05-08 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-12-23 (2007)
**Place:** Garhwa, Jharkhand; city town: Dhurki; police station or unit: Dhurki Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Jharkhand Police, Dhurki Police Station, Garhwa (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. \[name withheld\], appointed Constable in the Jharkhand Police in May 2005 and serving as Reserve Guard at Dhurki Police Station, took two days compensatory leave from 20 December 2007 and never rejoined. The Court recorded that during that absence he secured appointment as Constable in the Bihar Police under the name \[name withheld\] on forged certificates, then abandoned the Patna posting in January 2008. A forensic comparison of fingerprints, biometrics and photographs confirmed both names were one person, and the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa dismissed him in August 2010. The writ court sustained the dismissal but the Division Bench set it aside; the Supreme Court restored the dismissal as proportionate, quashed the Bihar appointment under Article 142, and directed the DGPs to examine criminal proceedings. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Public employment, particularly in the police service, cannot be converted into an instrument of fraud.

**Sources (3):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/09/the-state-of-jharkhand-v-ranjan-kumar-1777285.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-orders-criminal-action-against-constable-who-joined-bihar-jharkhand-police-in-different-names-533562); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-orders-dismissal-of-cop-who-joined-bihar-and-jharkhand-police-under-different-names)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jharkhand Police Constable and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-05-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2026 INSC 466; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 824', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/09/the-state-of-jharkhand-v-ranjan-kumar-1777285.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-orders-criminal-action-against-constable-who-joined-bihar-jharkhand-police-in-different-names-533562', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-orders-dismissal-of-cop-who-joined-bihar-and-jharkhand-police-under-different-names', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC restored dismissal for fraudulent dual police appointment under forged identity; criminal aspect sent for examination.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0048](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0048)

## Dharwad Police Police Constable vs State of Mysore (CW-1970-0004)

**Record:** CW-1970-0004 (compiler id CWC-1226); case GAP3-55-001
**Title:** Dharwad Police Police Constable vs State of Mysore
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: M. Hidayatullah; A. N. Ray
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 485 of 1967 / AIR 1972 SC 32
**Judgment:** 1970-10-16 (1970, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1953-01-01 (1953)
**Place:** Dharwad, Karnataka (district at time: Dharwar); city town: Dharwad; police station or unit: Dharwad District Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Dharwad district police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 16 October 1970 dismissed the appeal of former police constable, sustaining his 1953 dismissal from the Mysore (now Karnataka) police. The Court found that he had overstayed sanctioned leave from January 1953 without permission and then staged a seven-day public fast near Dharwar as a demonstration against his superior officers. It held that admission of facts in a departmental enquiry amounts to a plea of guilty and that absence without leave coupled with a demonstrative fast is fully established indiscipline in a police force. The dismissal was held merited; the case involved internal indiscipline with no public victim. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> If a police officer remains absent without leave and also resorts to fast as a demonstration against the action of the superior officer the indiscipline is fully established.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1481963/); [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1970/october/channabasappa-basappa-happali-vs-state-of-mysore-insc-220-16-october-1970-12)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Dharwad Police Police Constable vs State of Mysore
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1970-10-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1972 SC 32', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1481963/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1970/october/channabasappa-basappa-happali-vs-state-of-mysore-insc-220-16-october-1970-12', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC upheld dismissal of constable for overstaying leave and staging a protest fast; internal indiscipline, no public victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1970-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1970-0004)

## Mysore State Police Police Constable vs State of Mysore (CW-1976-0003)

**Record:** CW-1976-0003 (compiler id CWC-1103); case GAP3-127-012
**Title:** Mysore State Police Police Constable vs State of Mysore
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: A. N. Ray; M. H. Beg; Jaswant Singh
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 847 of 1974 / AIR 1976 SC 1080; (1976) 3 SCC 76
**Judgment:** 1976-03-26 (1976, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1960-01-01 (1960)
**Place:** Belagavi, Karnataka (district at time: Belgaum); city town: Belagavi; police station or unit: Khade-bazar Police Station, Belgaum; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Bombay Prohibition Act s.66(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Khade-bazar Police Station, Belgaum, Mysore State Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 26 March 1976 dismissed constable 's appeal, sustaining his dismissal from the Mysore (now Karnataka) police for complicity in bootlegging. The Court found that fellow constables' statements implicated him with six others in smuggling illicit liquor linked to a 1960 seizure at Khade-bazar police station, Belgaum, and that the Superintendent of Police had disagreed with the enquiry officer's lenient recommendation to impose dismissal. It held that reasonable opportunity under Article 311 was satisfied and that courts cannot reweigh evidence in domestic enquiries, which do not require criminal standards of proof. The dismissal stands with no compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any force in the contention of counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence on the record which could justify the appellant's dismissal from service.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/927546/); [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1976/march/k-l-shinde-vs-state-of-mysore-insc-86-26-march-1976-50)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Mysore State Police Police Constable vs State of Mysore
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1976-03-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1976 SC 1080; (1976) 3 SCC 76', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/927546/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1976/march/k-l-shinde-vs-state-of-mysore-insc-86-26-march-1976-50', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC upheld dismissal of constable for complicity in illicit-liquor smuggling; courts cannot reweigh enquiry evidence.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1976-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1976-0003)

## Birur Police Head Constable (HC 81) vs State of Karnataka (CW-1980-0004)

**Record:** CW-1980-0004 (compiler id CWC-0805); case GAP2-25-002
**Title:** Birur Police Head Constable (HC 81) vs State of Karnataka
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: Rama Jois
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 11937 of 1978
**Judgment:** 1980-01-14 (1980, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1974-04-04 (1974)
**Place:** Chikkamagaluru, Karnataka (district at time: Chickmagalur); city town: Birur; police station or unit: Birur Police Station (later Sringeri Police Station); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (HC 81), Birur Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Birur resident; Birur resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Karnataka High Court (Rama Jois J., 14 January 1980) dismissed the writ of Head Constable and upheld his dismissal for bribery. The court recorded that in April 1974, while posted at Birur police station, he demanded Rs 3,000 and accepted Rs 1,000 to release two lock-up detainees on bail. It rejected his procedural challenges to the departmental enquiry and held the concurrent findings rested on clear evidence that a writ court cannot re-appreciate. The dismissal as confirmed in appeal and revision was sustained.

> the petitioner, who was a Head Constable in the Police Department of the State Government, has prayed for quashing the order imposing the penalty of dismissal from service against him

**Sources (1):** [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e2c54a932619d90257ab)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Birur Police Head Constable (HC 81) vs State of Karnataka
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1980-01-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P. No. 11937 of 1978', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e2c54a932619d90257ab', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; dismissal of bribe-taking head constable upheld (full text mirror-blocked; corroborated via indexed snippets).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1980-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1980-0004)

## Mangalore Man vs D.I.G. of Police (CW-1982-0002)

**Record:** CW-1982-0002 (compiler id CWC-0804); case GAP2-25-001
**Title:** Mangalore Man vs D.I.G. of Police
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: Rama Jois
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 38840 of 1982 / ILR 1986 KAR 478
**Judgment:** 1982-11-08 (1982, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-10-01 (1980)
**Place:** Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka; city town: Mangalore; police station or unit: Bajpe Airport, Mangalore (then ASI); SSB Bangalore (at dismissal); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 353
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, SSB Bangalore (formerly ASI, Bajpe Airport) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mangalore man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Karnataka High Court (Rama Jois J., 8 November 1982) rejected the writ of Sub-Inspector and sustained his dismissal from service. The court recorded that while posted as ASI at Bajpe Airport he assaulted on-duty traffic constable at Mangalore on 1 October 1980, for which the JMFC convicted him under Section 353 IPC and sentenced him to 3 months RI. The court held the dismissal validly founded on the conduct that led to the conviction, and that suspension of the sentence pending appeal did not wipe out the conviction. It found the disciplinary authority had applied its own mind and dismissed the petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Writ Petition is by a Sub-Inspector of Police who has been dismissed from service on the basis of the conduct which has led to his conviction, on a criminal charge u/s 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/326983/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/511306/mahalinga-appellant-hash-dig-of-police-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 1
**display title redacted:** Mangalore Man vs D.I.G. of Police
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1982-11-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'ILR 1986 KAR 478', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/326983/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/511306/mahalinga-appellant-hash-dig-of-police-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ rejected; dismissal of PSI for assault leading to Section 353 IPC conviction upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1982-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1982-0002)

## Bengaluru Woman vs The Chief Secretary & Ors. (CW-1995-0006)

**Record:** CW-1995-0006 (compiler id CWC-0200); case KARNAT-015
**Title:** Bengaluru Woman vs The Chief Secretary & Ors.
**Court:** Karnataka High Court
**Case number / citation:** 1995 SCC OnLine Kar 245; 1995 Cri LJ 4148; ILR 1995 KAR 2424; 1996 ACJ 1091; 1995 (6) Kar LJ 8
**Judgment:** 1995-07-14 (1995, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-05-18 (1988)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka; city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: Subramanyanagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Subramanyanagar Police Station, Bengaluru; Head Constable, Subramanyanagar Police Station, Bengaluru; Police Constable, Subramanyanagar Police Station, Bengaluru (3 in record)
**Victims:** Bengaluru man, age 40 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Bengaluru man, arrested by Subramanyanagar police for autorickshaw theft, died in the station on 18 May 1988; police claimed he hanged himself with a torn woollen rug, and a court-ordered Chief Metropolitan Magistrate enquiry accepted suicide and denied damages. The Division Bench rejected the enquiry report, holding that the police examined neither the alleged eyewitnesses nor the post-mortem doctor and discharged none of the onus on them to show absence of negligence. The court awarded Rs 2,00,000 compensation to the widow and three minor children and directed the State to work out a scheme for interim relief of not less than Rs 25,000 within one month in every custodial death. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As we have said earlier, once a prisoner is in police custody, custodial death cannot be treated in casual and cavalier fashion. We find as stated earlier, the legal heirs of the victims do not get any relief for many years.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/541497/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Bengaluru Woman vs The Chief Secretary & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1995-07-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1995 SCC OnLine Kar 245; 1995 Cri LJ 4148; ILR 1995 KAR 2424; 1996 ACJ 1091; 1995 (6) Kar LJ 8', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/541497/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Karnataka HC Division Bench rejected the suicide theory and CMM report in a 1988 custodial death, held police negligent, and awarded Rs 2 lakh compensation with a statewide interim-relief direction.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1995-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1995-0006)

## State of Karnataka and Others vs Karnataka Police Police Constable (CW-1997-0020)

**Record:** CW-1997-0020 (compiler id CWC-1099); case GAP3-127-007
**Title:** State of Karnataka and Others vs Karnataka Police Police Constable
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Sujata V. Manohar; D. P. Wadhwa
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 1119 of 1990 / (1998) 9 SCC 671
**Judgment:** 1997-10-23 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated (1985)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka; city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: Sheshadripuram Traffic Sub-Zone, Bengaluru City; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Sheshadripuram Traffic Sub-Zone, Bengaluru City, Karnataka Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 23 October 1997 restored the dismissal of Bangalore traffic constable for gross misconduct in extorting auto-rickshaw drivers. The Court recorded that as station rider he unofficially stopped drivers daily and released them for Rs. 50-70 each, issuing police notices only to squeeze payment and withdrawing them once paid, and collecting Rs. 150-200 per traffic violation. A departmental enquiry found him guilty and dismissal was confirmed on appeal, but the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal reduced it to withholding two increments as too harsh. The Court held the choice of penalty is exclusively the competent authority's domain and set aside the Tribunal's order. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> He was basically charged with gross misconduct in collecting money from auto rickshaw drivers. A departmental enquiry was held and he was found guilty of the charges.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/679514/state-of-karnataka-and-others-vs-h-nagaraj/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1729778/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 1
**display title redacted:** State of Karnataka and Others vs Karnataka Police Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-10-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1998) 9 SCC 671', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/679514/state-of-karnataka-and-others-vs-h-nagaraj/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1729778/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC restored dismissal of traffic constable who extorted auto drivers daily.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1997-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0020)

## Bengaluru Woman vs The Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. (CW-2000-0006)

**Record:** CW-2000-0006 (compiler id CWC-0186); case SOUTH-007
**Title:** Bengaluru Woman vs The Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: V. Gopala Gowda
**Case number / citation:** 2001 Cri LJ 238; ILR 2001 Kant 1626
**Judgment:** 2000-08-14 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-03-22 (1993)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka; city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 14; Article 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Circle Inspector of Police, Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru; Sub-Inspector of Police (Crime), Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru; Head Constable, Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru; Police Constable, Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru; Police Constable, Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru; Police Constable, Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru; Police Constable, Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru; Assistant Sub-Inspector / Station House Officer, Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru; Police personnel, Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru (9 in record)
**Victims:** Bengaluru man, age 27 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. A Bengaluru man, a 27-year-old weaver, was picked up by Mahalakshmi Layout police in February–March 1993 and died in the police lock-up on the night of 22/23 March 1993; his widow alleged illegal detention, third-degree torture and extortion while police claimed suicide by hanging. On a private complaint the CoD investigated and charge-sheeted nine police personnel (C.C. No. 16457/1998), yet the State took no disciplinary action. The High Court held the death occurred in police custody after inhuman treatment in violation of Articles 14 and 21, awarded Rs 5,00,000 compensation (including Rs 1 lakh interim relief) to the widow and minor son, directed immediate disciplinary proceedings against all nine accused personnel, and ordered recovery of the compensation from those found responsible. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The State Government is further directed to recover the amount of compensation awarded in this case from all the accused police personnel who are responsible for the custodial death of the petitioner's husband after fixing their liability.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1930301/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** operative direction (vi) (following para 37)
**display title redacted:** Bengaluru Woman vs The Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-08-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2001 Cri LJ 238; ILR 2001 Kant 1626', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1930301/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court held a Bengaluru man died in police custody after inhuman treatment and awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation with disciplinary proceedings and recovery from the nine accused personnel.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2000-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0006)

## Belagavi Man and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others (CW-2000-0008)

**Record:** CW-2000-0008 (compiler id CWC-0684); case GAP10-007
**Title:** Belagavi Man and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: H. L. Dattu
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition under Article 226 / 2000 Cri LJ 4408; (2001) ILR Kant 1531
**Judgment:** 2000-09-05 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-07-07 (1992)
**Place:** Belagavi, Karnataka (district at time: Belgaum); city town: Belagavi; police station or unit: Belgaum Central Prison / police custody; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Belagavi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. A Belagavi man, an under-trial auto driver transferred from Bangalore to Belgaum Central Prison, sustained injuries in custody on 4 July 1992 and died in hospital on 7 July 1992. The authorities claimed a jail-break attempt led to a mild lathi-charge and stampede injuring 62 prisoners; the family alleged brutal beating and torture in police custody. Justice Dattu found the ADGP (Prisons) enquiry report a farce that ignored uniform contusions and a fatal cervical-spine injury consistent with deliberate beating while in custody. Citing Nilabati Behera, D.K. Basu and Kewal Pati, the Court held he died in police custody because of torture by brutal beating, allowed the petition, awarded Rs.3 lakh compensation, and directed the State to appoint an investigating agency to fix responsibility of the police personnel. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the only inference that can be drawn is that the petitioner's husband died while he was in police custody because of torture and injury caused by police authority by their brutal beating, may be with a wooden rod.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/734486/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Belagavi Man and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-09-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2000 Cri LJ 4408; (2001) ILR Kant 1531', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/734486/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held under-trial beaten to death in custody; Rs.3 lakh compensation plus probe to fix police responsibility.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2000-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0008)

## Kalaburagi Man and Another vs State of Karnataka and Others (CW-2001-0005)

**Record:** CW-2001-0005 (compiler id CWC-0447); case SWCUSTOD-012
**Title:** Kalaburagi Man and Another vs State of Karnataka and Others
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: V. Gopala Gowda
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (number not stated in reported text) / ILR 2004 KAR 3052
**Judgment:** 2001-08-18 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-06-19 (1992)
**Place:** Kalaburagi, Karnataka (district at time: Gulbarga); city town: Kalaburagi; police station or unit: Chowk Police Station and Station Bazar Police Station, Gulbarga; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Veerabhadrappa (Assistant Sub-Inspector); Police Sub-Inspector, Station Bazar PS, Gulbarga (2 in record)
**Victims:** Kalaburagi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. A Kalaburagi man, who had demanded back Rs 25,000 paid for a promised job, was falsely implicated at the recipient's instance, illegally detained at Chowk PS from 16 May 1992, briefly escaped, was handed by the ASI to PSI, and died in the Station Bazar lock-up on 19 June 1992. On the undisputed COD report, the Karnataka High Court found month-long illegal detention without production before court in conspiracy with the complainant, and fixed tortious liability on the State. The court awarded the mother 2 lakh with 6 percent per annum interest from the date of illegal detention, ordered the State to recover proportionately from the guilty personnel, and directed disciplinary proceedings within four weeks. The pending Sessions trial against 22 charge-sheeted accused was left to proceed independently.

> It is crystal clear that Veerabhadrappa, A.S.I., took the law into his own hands and kept a Kalaburagi man in illegal detention for more than a month without producing him before the concerned Court.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1725699/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Kalaburagi Man and Another vs State of Karnataka and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-08-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'ILR 2004 KAR 3052', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1725699/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs 2 lakh plus 6% interest for month-long illegal detention and custodial death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2001-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0005)

## Mysuru Woman & Anr. vs The State of Karnataka & Ors. (CW-2002-0008)

**Record:** CW-2002-0008 (compiler id CWC-0187); case KARNAT-002
**Title:** Mysuru Woman & Anr. vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: R. Gururajan
**Case number / citation:** 2003 Cri LJ 1003; ILR 2002 Kant 5230
**Judgment:** 2002-10-28 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-05-04 (1993)
**Place:** Mysuru, Karnataka; city town: Mysuru; police station or unit: Devaraja Police Station, Mysuru; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Circle Inspector of Police ('C' Division), Devaraja Police Station, Mysuru; Police official, Devaraja Police Station, Mysuru; Police official, Devaraja Police Station, Mysuru; Woman Head Constable (WHC 88), Devaraja Police Station, Mysuru (4 in record)
**Victims:** Mysuru woman, age 48 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. a woman, a 48-year-old maidservant, was taken to Devaraja Police Station on 4 May 1993 for interrogation in her employer's theft complaint and kept upstairs without a woman guard; she alleged her fingernails were pressed and she was threatened with stripping and gang rape. Fearing torture she jumped from the second floor and suffered grievous fractures leaving permanent disability in her right hand and leg, while the theft case ended in a C-report. The department exonerated three officials and let WHC \[name withheld\] off with a censure on appeal. The High Court found police excesses violating Article 21, awarded Rs 2,00,000 compensation (Rs 1,50,000 in fixed deposit, Rs 50,000 cash, 12% interest on default) plus Rs 5,000 costs to Samata Vedike, and directed the DGP to re-examine the departmental proceedings and take remedial action. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Rule of law is the basic foundation of the democracy.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/778542/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Mysuru Woman & Anr. vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-10-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2003 Cri LJ 1003; ILR 2002 Kant 5230', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/778542/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court found police excesses drove maidservant Nanjamma to jump from the station's second floor and awarded Rs 2 lakh compensation plus Rs 5,000 costs, directing the DGP to re-examine departmental action.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 48, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0008)

## Koppal Man & Ors. vs State of Karnataka & Ors. (CW-2003-0004)

**Record:** CW-2003-0004 (compiler id CWC-0190); case KARNAT-005
**Title:** Koppal Man & Ors. vs State of Karnataka & Ors.
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: Chandrashekaraiah
**Case number / citation:** ILR 2003 Kar 2357; 2003 (3) Kar LJ 395
**Judgment:** 2003-03-20 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-11-20 (1998)
**Place:** Koppal, Karnataka; city town: Koppal; police station or unit: Koppal Police Station, Koppal; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21; Article 22(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** R. N. Byrappa (Police Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Koppal man; Koppal man; Koppal man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 45,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Three men arrested on 19 November 1998 (falsely shown as arrested on 20 November to feign production within 24 hours) were handcuffed, chained and paraded in briefs only through the streets of Koppal from the police station to the Magistrate's residence on the evening of 20 November 1998. A departmental enquiry whitewashed the incident, so the High Court ordered a CBI enquiry, which proved the arrest-date falsification and the parading. The High Court held respondent No. 6, Inspector, had interfered with the petitioners' liberty and damaged their reputation in violation of Articles 21 and 22(2) and the Karnataka Police Manual, and directed him personally to pay Rs 15,000 to each petitioner (Rs 45,000 total) within three months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> respondent 6 has virtually interfered with the liberty of the petitioners and thereby caused damage to their reputation in handcuffing and parading in the open streets.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/803602/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Koppal Man & Ors. vs State of Karnataka & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-03-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 45,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'ILR 2003 Kar 2357; 2003 (3) Kar LJ 395', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/803602/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court held Inspector personally liable for handcuffing, chaining and parading three arrestees half-naked and directed him to pay Rs 15,000 to each.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0004)

## Shanthamma vs Sub-Inspector of Police, Malur and Others (CW-2006-0015)

**Record:** CW-2006-0015 (compiler id CWC-0685); case GAP10-008
**Title:** Shanthamma vs Sub-Inspector of Police, Malur and Others
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: R. Gururajan; N. Ananda
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 62/2006 (HC) (habeas corpus) / 2007(3) Kar LJ 330
**Judgment:** 2006-08-23 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-06-23 (2006)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka; city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: Indira Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Indira Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru; Police Constable, Indira Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru; Police Constable, Indira Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru (3 in record)
**Victims:** Bengaluru man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. A Bengaluru man was picked up around midnight on 23 June 2006 by Indiranagar police in a theft case; his mother was falsely told at Malur Police Station that he was not arrested, and he was kept in custody without production before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours, with Rs.5,000 allegedly demanded for his release. The detenu was produced on 29 June 2006, and the Registrar (Vigilance) reported illegal detention with discrepant affidavits and Station House Diary entries. The Division Bench held the detention illegal and violative of Article 21, directed the State to pay Rs.10,000 compensation within two weeks (recoverable from the officials), directed the Registrar General to file a criminal complaint against the SI and two constables for false affidavits, and directed the Commissioner of Police to hold a departmental enquiry. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the detenue was kept under illegal detention

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/475773/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Shanthamma vs Sub-Inspector of Police, Malur and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-08-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2007(3) Kar LJ 330', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/475773/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held illegal detention in habeas case; Rs.10,000 compensation plus criminal complaint and DE against SI and 2 PCs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0015)

## Bengaluru Man vs State by K. G. Nagar Police Station & Ors. (CW-2007-0006)

**Record:** CW-2007-0006 (compiler id CWC-0199); case KARNAT-014
**Title:** Bengaluru Man vs State by K. G. Nagar Police Station & Ors.
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: R. Gururajan; Anand Byrareddy
**Case number / citation:** 2007 (4) Kar LJ 627; AIR 2007 (NOC) 1641 (Kar); 2007 Cri LJ (NOC) 751
**Judgment:** 2007-04-19 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-01-07 (2007)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka; city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: K. G. Nagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bengaluru man; Bengaluru woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. A Bengaluru man and his sister \[name withheld\], who had filed a private complaint against a religious seer, were assaulted by K. G. Nagar police on the night of 7 January 2007, illegally detained at the station till the evening of 8 January 2007 and treated inhumanly. On a habeas corpus petition the High Court first secured their release and then ordered a Registrar (Vigilance) enquiry, which proved the assault, illegal detention and inhuman treatment on 7-8 January 2007 while rejecting claims for the earlier dates. A Division Bench accepted the report, awarded Rs 50,000 compensation plus Rs 5,000 litigation costs payable by the State, and directed the Director General of Police to conduct an independent enquiry and proceed against the erring officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The only other finding against the police is that the police ill-treated a Bengaluru man and Smt. A Bengaluru woman on 7-1-2007. The said report is accepted by us in the light of the detailed findings given by the Registrar.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/714229/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Bengaluru Man vs State by K. G. Nagar Police Station & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-04-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2007 (4) Kar LJ 627; AIR 2007 (NOC) 1641 (Kar); 2007 Cri LJ (NOC) 751', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/714229/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Karnataka HC Division Bench accepted Registrar (Vigilance) finding of assault, illegal detention and inhuman treatment by K.G. Nagar police, awarded Rs 50,000 compensation plus costs, and ordered DGP enquiry.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0006)

## State of Karnataka vs Bengaluru Police Police Constable (PC No. 2545) (CW-2009-0031)

**Record:** CW-2009-0031 (compiler id CWC-1227); case GAP3-58-001
**Title:** State of Karnataka vs Bengaluru Police Police Constable (PC No. 2545)
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: B.V. Nagarathna
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 6376/2007 (S)
**Judgment:** 2009-10-26 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-01-01 (1983)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka (district at time: Bangalore); city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: Mico Layout Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 375
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (PC No. 2545), Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bengaluru woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Police Constable (PC No. 2545) of Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, brought a helpless woman to the police station at about 1 a.m. in 1983 and sexually abused her, for which the enquiry officer found the departmental charges proved and he was dismissed on 19 August 1994. His criminal conviction had been set aside by the High Court in Crl.A. No. 154/1986 on benefit of doubt, and the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal ordered reinstatement with full benefits. The High Court held the acquittal was not honourable and the Tribunal erred, allowing the State's writ petition in part. The dismissal was converted to compulsory retirement with terminal benefits but no benefits for the dismissal-to-judgment period. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The order of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority is converted to one of compulsory retirement. The respondent shall be entitled to all terminal benefits but shall not be entitled to any benefit for the period from the date of order of dismissal till today.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1959223/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** State of Karnataka vs Bengaluru Police Police Constable (PC No. 2545)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-10-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P. No. 6376/2007 (S)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1959223/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on IK (OCR degraded); sexual misconduct in custody held proved, dismissal modified to compulsory retirement.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0031)

## Shivamogga Police Police Constable & Others vs State of Karnataka (CW-2009-0010)

**Record:** CW-2009-0010 (compiler id CWC-0188); case SUPREM-035; aliases: CWC-1464
**Title:** Shivamogga Police Police Constable & Others vs State of Karnataka
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Harjit Singh Bedi; J.M. Panchal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2003 / 2010 (3) SCR 883
**Judgment:** 2009-12-03 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-01-13 (1988)
**Place:** Shivamogga, Karnataka (district at time: Shimoga); city town: Shivamogga; police station or unit: Doddapet Police Station, Shivamogga; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 324; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** K. H. Shekarappa (Police Constable); Police Constable, Doddapet Police Station, Shimoga; Police Constable, Doddapet Police Station, Shimoga; Head Constable, Doddapet Police Station, Shimoga (8 in record)
**Victims:** Shivamogga man; Shivamogga man; Shivamogga man; Shivamogga man; Shivamogga man (5 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs; Rs 40,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. In the early hours of 13 January 1988, Doddapet police picked up five men over a New Year liquor-bar brawl and beat them in the lock-up and verandah — three victims were tied to stone pillars and thrashed with lathis and tyre pieces. A Shivamogga man (24 injuries) and a Shivamogga man (40 injuries) died in the station while a Shivamogga man and others were seriously injured. The trial court convicted the policemen for murder; after a split verdict in the High Court, the third judge convicted under Section 304 Part II with one year's RI. The Supreme Court dismissed the policemen's appeal, holding the deaths were caused by cruel thrashing in custody and the defence of injuries by fall was false, upholding one year's RI plus Rs 5,000 fine each (Rs 40,000 total, payable to the heirs of the two deceased).

> A fair reading of the testimony of this witness makes it abundantly clear that the appellants had subjected the two deceased to severe beating because of which they had died in the police station. Thus by ocular version the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88631322/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68383910/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Shivamogga Police Police Constable & Others vs State of Karnataka
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2010 (3) SCR 883', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2009-12-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2010 (3) SCR 883', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88631322/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68383910/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court dismissed the policemen's appeal and upheld conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC with one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine for the custodial beating deaths of two detainees.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0010)

## The Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad and Others vs Shivakka w/o Aminabhavi Man and Others (CW-2010-0014)

**Record:** CW-2010-0014 (compiler id CWC-0686); case GAP10-009
**Title:** The Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad and Others vs Shivakka w/o Aminabhavi Man and Others
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: D. V. Shylendra Kumar; N. Ananda
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act (against W.P. No. 20333/2004, 07.12.2006)
**Judgment:** 2010-04-12 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-11-29 (2002)
**Place:** Dharwad, Karnataka; city town: Aminabhavi; police station or unit: Dharwad police (custody 27-29 November 2002); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Aminabhavi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Police took control of an Aminabhavi man of Aminabhavi on the evening of 27 November 2002, rescuing him from a mob assault in which he had been tied to a telephone pole and beaten, and took him to hospital where three injuries were certified. He suffered multiple fractures and died a homicidal death by shock and haemorrhage while in police power and control over 27-29 November 2002. The Single Judge awarded Rs.3 lakh compensation in 2006; the State appealed contending he was never in police custody. The Division Bench held something damaging and disastrous happened to him within the power and control of the police, found no scope to interfere, dismissed the appeal with Rs.10,000 costs, and directed Rs.2 lakh in term deposit with Rs.1 lakh plus interest released to the widow.

> something damaging, disastrous had happened to deceased \[name withheld\] while he was within the power and control of the Police

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155846966/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** The Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad and Others vs Shivakka w/o Aminabhavi Man and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-04-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Writ Appeal under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act (against W.P. No. 20333/2004, 07.12.2006)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155846966/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB upheld Rs.3 lakh custodial-death award; State appeal dismissed with Rs.10,000 costs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0014)

## Chikkaballapur Man vs A. B. Devaiah & Ors. (CW-2010-0011)

**Record:** CW-2010-0011 (compiler id CWC-0194); case KARNAT-009
**Title:** Chikkaballapur Man vs A. B. Devaiah & Ors.
**Court:** Karnataka High Court
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1455 of 2005
**Judgment:** 2010-10-29 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-01-17 (1989)
**Place:** Chikkaballapur, Karnataka (district at time: Kolar); city town: Chikkaballapur; police station or unit: Town Police Station, Chikkaballapur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 341; IPC 323; Probation of Offenders Act 1958 s.4
**Officers (gated display forms):** A. B. Devaiah (Sub-Inspector of Police); Byatappa (Police Constable); Nagaraj (Police Constable); Khaleel (Police Constable) (4 in record)
**Victims:** Chikkaballapur man, age 42 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. On 17 January 1989, complainant \[name withheld\] arrived at the Chikkaballapur court premises with his advocate and surety to move a bail application in a bailable case, but was apprehended by the Sub-Inspector and three constables, dragged to the police station, assaulted with fists and boots, and subjected to electric shocks. The trial Magistrate acquitted all four policemen in 2005. The Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal, holding that the complainant had been illegally detained and assaulted despite the offence being bailable. The High Court convicted all four police officers under Sections 341 and 323 IPC, releasing them on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act upon executing good behaviour bonds. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This appeal is allowed. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The accused 1 to 4 are convicted for the offence under Sec.341 and 323 IPC.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1768438/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Chikkaballapur Man vs A. B. Devaiah & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-10-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1455 of 2005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1768438/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Karnataka HC set aside trial court acquittal and convicted Sub-Inspector and three constables under IPC 341 and 323 for custodial violence.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2010-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0011)

## City Armed Reserve Police Ex-Police Constable (PC No. 1709) vs State of Karnataka (CW-2010-0037)

**Record:** CW-2010-0037 (compiler id CWC-1228); case GAP3-58-002
**Title:** City Armed Reserve Police Ex-Police Constable (PC No. 1709) vs State of Karnataka
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: N. Kumar; S.N. Satyanarayana
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 21975/2010 (S-KAT)
**Judgment:** 2010-11-19 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-03-02 (2001)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka (district at time: Bangalore); city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: A Company, City Armed Reserve Police, Bengaluru; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ex-Police Constable (PC No. 1709), A Company, City Armed Reserve Police, Bengaluru (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bengaluru man; Bengaluru man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Police Constable (PC No. 1709) of A Company, City Armed Reserve, Bengaluru, abused RSI a Bengaluru man and ASI in foul language on the parade ground on 2 March 2001, assaulting the RSI and attempting to assault a Bengaluru man with a lathi before others intervened. A departmental enquiry found the misconduct proved and he was dismissed, with appeal and revision failing; the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal sustained the misconduct finding but substituted compulsory retirement noting 15+ years of service. He sought reinstatement with back wages under Articles 226/227. The High Court held four fact-finding authorities concurrently found the misconduct proved and the Tribunal's lenient penalty met the ends of justice, dismissing the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Tribunal has rightly held the evidence on record clearly establish the misconduct alleged against the petitioner.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1278004/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** City Armed Reserve Police Ex-Police Constable (PC No. 1709) vs State of Karnataka
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-11-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P. No. 21975/2010 (S-KAT)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1278004/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on IK (OCR degraded); assault on superior officers held proved, compulsory retirement sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0037)

## S. B. Muniyappa vs The State of Karnataka (CW-2012-0001)

**Record:** CW-2012-0001 (compiler id CWC-0196); case KARNAT-011
**Title:** S. B. Muniyappa vs The State of Karnataka
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: V. Jagannathan
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2007
**Judgment:** 2012-02-01 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-08-03 (1998)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka; city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: Vivek Nagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** S. B. Muniyappa (Police Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bengaluru man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. The appellant, S.B. Muniyappa, serving as Police Sub-Inspector at Vivek Nagar Police Station in Bengaluru, demanded a bribe of Rs 1,50,000 and accepted Rs 25,000 from the complainant to settle a cheque bounce dispute without registering a criminal case. Following a trap and investigation, the Special Court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Karnataka High Court dismissed his appeal against conviction, holding that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were proven beyond reasonable doubt, while modifying the sentence under Section 13(1)(d) to one year rigorous imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentence under Section 7.

> This appeal is therefore allowed in part to the extent of modification in the sentence as indicated above. The trial court shall take necessary steps to secure the presence of the appellant for him to undergo the sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107004510/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** S. B. Muniyappa vs The State of Karnataka
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Karnataka High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Karnataka High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2012-02-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107004510/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Karnataka HC upheld conviction of Police Sub-Inspector under PC Act Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) for bribery, modifying sentence to 1 year RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0001)

## Kalaburagi Police Head Constable v. State of Karnataka (CW-2012-0006)

**Record:** CW-2012-0006 (compiler id CWC-0504); case SWDERELI-016
**Title:** Kalaburagi Police Head Constable v. State of Karnataka
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; bench: Kalaburagi; judges: V. Suri Appa Rao
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2007 / (2013) CriLJ 1040; (2012) ILR Kar 6556
**Judgment:** 2012-04-03 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-08-15 (2004)
**Place:** Kalaburagi, Karnataka; city town: Kalaburagi; police station or unit: District Armed Reserve, Gulbarga; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 221; IPC 222; IPC 223
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, District Armed Reserve, Gulbarga (attached to Central Jail) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The High Court confirmed the conviction of Head Constable for intentionally allowing his brother-in-law, convict Rustum Khan, to escape from lawful custody while escorting him from Central Jail Gulbarga to hospital and back, and then omitting to apprehend him. The Court disbelieved the chilly-powder escape story, noting the convict was the appellant's wife's younger brother. The sentences of six months' imprisonment plus Rs.500 fine on each of the three counts (Sections 221, 222 and 223 IPC) were sustained. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It appears that the appellant intentionally allowed the convict Rustum Khan to escape from his lawful custody.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/488400/younus-khan-vs-state-of-karnataka/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Kalaburagi Police Head Constable v. State of Karnataka
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Karnataka High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Karnataka High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2013) CriLJ 1040; (2012) ILR Kar 6556', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2012-04-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2013) CriLJ 1040; (2012) ILR Kar 6556', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/488400/younus-khan-vs-state-of-karnataka/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment text verified; escort-constable conviction for intentional escape of convict upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0006)

## State by Lokayukta Police vs Malavalli Police Sub-Inspector of Police (CW-2012-0031)

**Record:** CW-2012-0031 (compiler id CWC-0806); case GAP3-59-005
**Title:** State by Lokayukta Police vs Malavalli Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: V. Jagannathan
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1501 of 2007
**Judgment:** 2012-05-30 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-12-03 (2005)
**Place:** Mandya, Karnataka; city town: Malavalli; police station or unit: Malavalli Rural Police Station, Mandya; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Malavalli Rural Police Station, Mandya (1 in record)
**Victims:** Malavalli man; Malavalli resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Karnataka High Court (V. Jagannathan J., 30 May 2012) allowed the Lokayukta appeal, set aside the acquittal and convicted Sub-Inspector of Malavalli Rural police station for bribery. The court recorded that he demanded and accepted Rs 1,000 from anticipatory-bail holder a Malavalli man to permit execution of his bail bond, caught in a Lokayukta trap on 3 December 2005. It held the demand and acceptance proved through the complainant, shadow witness, investigating officer and chemical test, calling the trial acquittal perverse and unreasonable. The court imposed 1 year RI plus Rs 5,000 fine under Section 7 and 1 year RI plus Rs 10,000 fine under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, to run concurrently. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> No such doubt arises in the instant case to take such a view of the matter. The finding therefore is perverse and the view taken is also unreasonable.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61301808/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92566927/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** State by Lokayukta Police vs Malavalli Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-05-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1501 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61301808/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92566927/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Acquittal set aside; retired PSI convicted for Rs 1,000 station bribe; 1 yr RI concurrent.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2012-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0031)

## Konanur Police personnel vs State of Karnataka (CW-2012-0032)

**Record:** CW-2012-0032 (compiler id CWC-0908); case GAP2-58-001
**Title:** Konanur Police personnel vs State of Karnataka
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: A. K. Patnaik; Madan B. Lokur
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1323 of 2007 / (2012) 8 SCC 527
**Judgment:** 2012-07-31 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-06-28 (1993)
**Place:** Hassan, Karnataka; city town: Konanur; police station or unit: Konanur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Konanur Police Station, Hassan district (1 in record)
**Victims:** Konanur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.25 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. \[name withheld\], a police officer at Konanur Police Station (Hassan), allegedly demanded illegal gratification from villager a Konanur man to file a charge-sheet on a June 1993 boundary-dispute complaint; the Lokayukta laid a phenolphthalein trap on 28 June 1993 and the hand wash confirmed receipt of tainted notes. The trial court acquitted him on a vengeance-defence theory and minor discrepancies, but the Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act with 3 months RI and a Rs 20,000 fine. The Supreme Court held demand and acceptance proved by the complainant and two independent trap witnesses and dismissed the appeal, while leaving the below-minimum sentence undisturbed since the State had not appealed it.

> It is while undertaking this exercise that we find from the evidence of the witnesses that there was sufficient evidence of \[name withheld\] demanding illegal gratification from a Konanur man and receiving and accepting it when given by him.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158264225/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/667533/syed-ahmed-appellant-hash-state-of-karnataka-respondent/); [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/39438.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Konanur Police personnel vs State of Karnataka
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2012) 8 SCC 527', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2012-07-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2012) 8 SCC 527', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158264225/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/667533/syed-ahmed-appellant-hash-state-of-karnataka-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/39438.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; PC Act bribery conviction of police officer upheld, appeal dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0032)

## Bengaluru Police Armed Police Constable (APC-1140) vs The State of Karnataka and Others (CW-2012-0021)

**Record:** CW-2012-0021 (compiler id CWC-0687); case GAP10-005
**Title:** Bengaluru Police Armed Police Constable (APC-1140) vs The State of Karnataka and Others
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: N. K. Patil; B. S. Indrakala
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 46400 of 2012 (S-KAT) (against KAT Application No. 5066/2007, 10.07.2012)
**Judgment:** 2012-12-03 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-08-02 (2004)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka; city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: City Armed Reserve (South), Bengaluru; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Police Constable (APC-1140), City Armed Reserve (South), Bengaluru (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Armed Police Constable of CAR (South), Bengaluru remained unauthorisedly absent from 2 August 2004, admitting 192 days absence before the enquiry officer. The Deputy Commissioner of Police imposed compulsory retirement in June 2005 considering his earlier record of absence in 18 years of service, and the appellate, revisional and KAT orders affirmed the penalty. The Division Bench held the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing compulsory retirement, calling it a lenient view, and found the 192-day absence from an essential service astonishing. Recording concurrent findings of fact, the Court held the penalty not disproportionate and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> justified in imposing penalty of compulsory retirement to the petitioner, which is infact a lenient view

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7205702/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Bengaluru Police Armed Police Constable (APC-1140) vs The State of Karnataka and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-12-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P. No. 46400 of 2012 (S-KAT) (against KAT Application No. 5066/2007, 10.07.2012)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7205702/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld compulsory retirement of armed constable for 192-day unauthorised absence; service-discipline matter.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0021)

## Belagavi Police Police Constable vs State of Karnataka (CW-2013-0032)

**Record:** CW-2013-0032 (compiler id CWC-1230); case GAP3-59-002
**Title:** Belagavi Police Police Constable vs State of Karnataka
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; bench: Dharwad; judges: N. Kumar; Aravind Kumar
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 78358/2013 (S-KAT)
**Judgment:** 2013-08-13 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belagavi, Karnataka (district at time: Belgaum); police station or unit: Belgaum Market Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Belgaum Market Police Station, Belgaum (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Police Constable of Belgaum Market Police Station and two colleagues were charged with stealing KSRTC bus warrants and misappropriating Rs.25,670 with the connivance of Mysore depot bus conductors, leading to his removal from service on 11 March 1999 after an enquiry with 22 witnesses, affirmed on appeal. His challenge before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, filed 8.5 years late, was rejected on delay and merits. He contended separate enquiries for supervising officers and discriminatory punishment vitiated the order. The High Court held the inspectors faced only supervision charges justifying censure while proved theft, forgery and misappropriation warranted dismissal, dismissing the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, having regard to the nature of mis-conduct proved, the punishment imposed is just and proper.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62282649/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Belagavi Police Police Constable vs State of Karnataka
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-08-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 78358/2013 (S-KAT)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62282649/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on IK; removal for bus-warrant theft/forgery/misappropriation upheld as just and proper.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0032)

## Belagavi Man & Ors. vs The State of Karnataka & Ors. (CW-2013-0014)

**Record:** CW-2013-0014 (compiler id CWC-0189); case KARNAT-004
**Title:** Belagavi Man & Ors. vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; bench: Dharwad; judges: H.N. Nagamohan Das
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 3401/2008 (GM-Police) / 2014 (3) AKR 428
**Judgment:** 2013-10-10 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-11-24 (2006)
**Place:** Belagavi, Karnataka; city town: Belagavi; police station or unit: District Armed Reserve (DAR), Belagavi (escort party); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Reserve Sub-Inspector (ARSI), District Armed Reserve (DAR), Belagavi (escort party, Central Prison Hindalga) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Belagavi man, age 65; Belagavi man, age 21; Belagavi man, age 34; Belagavi man, age 31; Belagavi man, age 37; Belagavi man, age 40; Belagavi man, age 38 (7 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 35,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench (H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.) held that undertrial prisoners in Crime No. 62/2006 were produced before the JMFC, Belagavi, in handcuffs on 24.11.2006 without magisterial permission, in clear violation of the Supreme Court directions in the handcuffing cases. The Court held the admitted handcuffing infringed the petitioners dignity and human rights and directed the State to pay Rs 5,000 to each of the surviving petitioners (Rs 35,000 total), leaving it open to hold an enquiry against escort officer. Petitioner. 2 died during pendency and the petition abated as to him. The memo lists eight petitioners, so seven survivors receive compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The fact that the respondents brought the petitioners from the jail to the Court in handcuff is in clear violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163383470/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Belagavi Man & Ors. vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-10-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 35,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2014 (3) AKR 428', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163383470/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified; corrected survivors to 7 named and subcategory to other (unlawful handcuffing).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0014)

## Belagavi Police Police Constable and others vs State of Karnataka (CW-2013-0037)

**Record:** CW-2013-0037 (compiler id CWC-1232); case GAP3-59-004
**Title:** Belagavi Police Police Constable and others vs State of Karnataka
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; bench: Dharwad; judges: Dilip B. Bhosale; B. Manohar
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition Nos. 70837/2012 (S-KAT) c/w 71237/2012 (S-KAT)
**Judgment:** 2013-11-12 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belagavi, Karnataka (district at time: Belgaum); city town: Belagavi; police station or unit: Belgaum Market Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules Rule 6 (major penalty)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Belgaum Market Police Station, Belgaum District Unit; Police Constable, Belgaum Market Police Station, Belgaum District Unit (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. While posted at Belgaum Market Police Station, constables and \[name withheld\] stole KSRTC bus warrants from the station, forged the officer's signature on them, and encashed them in collusion with a bus conductor, misappropriating Rs.25,670. A departmental inquiry examining 22 witnesses held the charges proved, and both constables were removed from service, which the KAT confirmed. The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) held no joint inquiry with the censured supervising inspectors was required since the charges differed, found the penalty proportionate, and dismissed both writ petitions. The court ruled the criminal acquittal was no ground to unsettle the disciplinary findings; no compensation was ordered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioners being Police Constables and public servants have to maintain integrity and purity in their life and safeguard the life and property of the person and society. Being the members of disciplined force they themselves have involved in the theft, forgery as well as misappropriation.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160500680/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Belagavi Police Police Constable and others vs State of Karnataka
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-11-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Petition Nos. 70837/2012 (S-KAT) c/w 71237/2012 (S-KAT)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160500680/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; removal of two constables for bus-warrant theft, forgery and misappropriation upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0037)

## Hukkeri Police Police Constable (Buckle No. 507) vs State of Karnataka (CW-2014-0023)

**Record:** CW-2014-0023 (compiler id CWC-1229); case GAP3-59-001
**Title:** Hukkeri Police Police Constable (Buckle No. 507) vs State of Karnataka
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; bench: Dharwad; judges: K.N. Phaneendra
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 2889/2011
**Judgment:** 2014-03-14 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-05-12 (2007)
**Place:** Belagavi, Karnataka (district at time: Belgaum); city town: Hukkeri; police station or unit: Hukkeri Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (Buckle No. 507), Hukkeri Police Station, Belgaum (1 in record)
**Victims:** Hukkeri resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Police Constable (Buckle No. 507) of Hukkeri Police Station demanded Rs.500 from villager a Hukkeri resident in May 2007 to not harass him over a land-dispute compromise, threatening lock-up, and was caught in a Lokayukta trap with phenolphthalein-smeared notes and a positive hand wash. The Special Judge, Belgaum, convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 26 November 2011. The High Court held receiving illegal remuneration he was not entitled to attracted Section 13(1)(d)(i) though no official favour was pending, and rejected the sanction challenge. It set aside the Section 7 conviction but confirmed the 2-year RI plus Rs.3,000 fine under Section 13(1)(d), directing surrender. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence relied upon by the prosecution though the official favour was not in existence to be shown in favour of the complainant by the accused, nevertheless, the accused who was not entitled for any money from the complainant, he has received the said illegal remuneration from the complainant and thereby the Section 13(1)(d)(i) is definitely attracted.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144071803/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 34
**display title redacted:** Hukkeri Police Police Constable (Buckle No. 507) vs State of Karnataka
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Karnataka High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Karnataka High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 2889/2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2014-03-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 2889/2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144071803/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on IK; PC Act s.13(1)(d) bribery conviction of constable confirmed (s.7 set aside), surrender ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0023)

## Pavagada Police Police Constable vs The Director General and Inspector General of Police and Another (CW-2014-0024)

**Record:** CW-2014-0024 (compiler id CWC-1231); case GAP3-59-003
**Title:** Pavagada Police Police Constable vs The Director General and Inspector General of Police and Another
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: K.L. Manjunath; Ravi Malimath
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 29152 of 2010 (S-KAT)
**Judgment:** 2014-03-20 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-02-15 (1987)
**Place:** Tumakuru, Karnataka (district at time: Tumkur); city town: Pavagada; police station or unit: Pavagada Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 1965 Rule 6(2) r/w Rule 8
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Pavagada police, Tumkur district (1 in record)
**Victims:** Pavagada woman; Pavagada man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. On the night of 15 February 1987, a woman and her husband who had missed their bus in Pavagada town were stopped by three drunken police constables including \[name withheld\], abused and assaulted, then taken by jeep to the police station where they were inhumanly beaten and the woman was sexually humiliated. A commission of inquiry indicted the police, and a joint disciplinary proceeding held the grave-misconduct charge proved against \[name withheld\], leading to his removal from service. The Karnataka High Court credited the direct evidence of both victims, rejected pleas of discrimination, disproportionality and reliance on a technical criminal-trial acquittal, and dismissed the writ petition. The court sustained the removal from service; no compensation was ordered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Charge no.2 was held proved to the effect that the petitioner and two others assaulted \[survivor\] and her husband and poked at her private parts with their sticks and kicked them with the boots and thus committed grave misconduct.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38508783/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Pavagada Police Police Constable vs The Director General and Inspector General of Police and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-03-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 29152 of 2010 (S-KAT)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38508783/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; removal of constable for custodial assault and sexual humiliation upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0024)

## Mandya Police Police Constable (CPC 383) vs The Inspector General of Police (South Zone) & Anr. (CW-2014-0039)

**Record:** CW-2014-0039 (compiler id CWC-0807); case GAP2-27-001
**Title:** Mandya Police Police Constable (CPC 383) vs The Inspector General of Police (South Zone) & Anr.
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: N. K. Patil; Rathnakala
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 9279/2012 (S-KAT) / (2015) 2 AKR 783 : (2015) 2 KarLJ 49 : (2015) LabIC 2682
**Judgment:** 2014-12-18 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-08-06 (1996)
**Place:** Mandya, Karnataka; city town: Mandya; police station or unit: Mandya West Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (CPC 383), Mandya West Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Karnataka High Court Division Bench (N.K. Patil and Rathnakala JJ., 18 December 2014) dismissed the writ of Police Constable and confirmed his compulsory retirement. The court recorded that he remained absent without authorisation from 6 August 1996 and faced a second charge of theft of two-wheelers, though acquitted in the criminal trial. It held the departmental inquiry complied with the KSP (DP) Rules with full opportunity to contest, and that the criminal acquittal did not help in disciplinary proceedings. The court found compulsory retirement with service benefits commensurate with the proved charges. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In our considered opinion also, his compulsory retirement from service with all the service benefits, commensurates with the gravity of the charges proved.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/525136/narasimha-rao-s-appellant-hash-the-inspector-general-of-police-respondent/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1173262/s-narasimha-rao-vs-inspector-general)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Mandya Police Police Constable (CPC 383) vs The Inspector General of Police (South Zone) & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-12-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2015) 2 AKR 783 : (2015) 2 KarLJ 49 : (2015) LabIC 2682', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/525136/narasimha-rao-s-appellant-hash-the-inspector-general-of-police-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1173262/s-narasimha-rao-vs-inspector-general', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; compulsory retirement for prolonged absence and theft charge confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0039)

## Mysuru Police Police Constable and others vs The State of Karnataka (CW-2015-0014)

**Record:** CW-2015-0014 (compiler id CWC-0688); case GAP10-002
**Title:** Mysuru Police Police Constable and others vs The State of Karnataka
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: Budihal R. B.
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 520/2010 (against S.C. No. 174/2005, FTC-IV Mysore, 30.04.2010)
**Judgment:** 2015-03-27 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-01-01 (2005)
**Place:** Mysuru, Karnataka (district at time: Mysore); city town: Mysuru; police station or unit: Nazarbad Police Station, Mysuru; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 324
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, DAR, Mysore (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mysuru man; Mysuru woman; Mysuru man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. On the midnight of 1 January 2002 a quarrel near police quarters in Jyothinagar, Mysore, allegedly sparked by bursting crackers after 11 p.m., led to \[name withheld\], a DAR police constable, and his son assaulting neighbours with a reaper patti and a wicket; a case and counter-case were registered at Nazarbad Police Station. The Fast Track Court-IV, Mysore convicted both appellants under Section 324 IPC in 2010. Justice Budihal R.B. held the trial court's view was neither perverse nor capricious, confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal, finding the accused in the connected appeal were the aggressors. Accepting that accused No.1 was a first-offender government servant, the Court maintained his conviction but released him on probation of good conduct after admonition, directing the conviction should not affect his service. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> There are no valid and justifiable grounds for this Court to interfere into the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and the same is hereby confirmed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199576609/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Mysuru Police Police Constable and others vs The State of Karnataka
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Karnataka High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Karnataka High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 520/2010 (against S.C. No. 174/2005, FTC-IV Mysore, 30.04.2010)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2015-03-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 520/2010 (against S.C. No. 174/2005, FTC-IV Mysore, 30.04.2010)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199576609/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC confirmed s.324 IPC conviction of police constable but substituted fine with probation (off-duty quarrel).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0014)

## Hiriyur Police Circle Inspector of Police vs The State of Karnataka (by Lokayukta Police, Chitradurga) (CW-2018-0026)

**Record:** CW-2018-0026 (compiler id CWC-1233); case GAP3-61-002
**Title:** Hiriyur Police Circle Inspector of Police vs The State of Karnataka (by Lokayukta Police, Chitradurga)
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: N.K. Sudhindrarao
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1360 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2018-08-03 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-03-12 (2007)
**Place:** Chitradurga, Karnataka; city town: Hiriyur; police station or unit: Hiriyur Circle, Chitradurga; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Circle Inspector of Police, Hosadurga, Chitradurga district (1 in record)
**Victims:** Hiriyur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Minerals trader \[name withheld\] complained that Circle Inspector demanded Rs.1,00,000 as bribe for non-interference in his mines business, and the officer was caught red-handed in a Lokayukta trap. The Special Court at Chitradurga convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, sentencing him to 3 and 5 years' simple imprisonment with fines. The Karnataka High Court held the demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt, rejected the jurisdictional objection to the Bengaluru Lokayukta police, and confirmed the conviction. The court reduced the sentence on health grounds to 1 year plus Rs.15,000 fine (s.7) and 2 years plus Rs.75,000 fine (s.13), concurrent. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> From all angles, the guilt of the accused in demanding and receiving of bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- is established and the learned trial Judge was right in finding the accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31961812/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 80
**display title redacted:** Hiriyur Police Circle Inspector of Police vs The State of Karnataka (by Lokayukta Police, Chitradurga)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Karnataka High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Karnataka High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1360 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2018-08-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1360 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31961812/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; PC Act bribery conviction of Circle Inspector confirmed, sentence reduced.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0026)

## \[name withheld\] vs The Commandant, Second Regiment, Karnataka State Reserve Police & Anr. (CW-2019-0009)

**Record:** CW-2019-0009 (compiler id CWC-0198); case KARNAT-013; aliases: CWC-1483
**Title:** \[name withheld\] vs The Commandant, Second Regiment, Karnataka State Reserve Police & Anr.
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; bench: Dharwad; judges: S. N. Satyanarayana; P. G. M. Patil
**Case number / citation:** WP No. 104315/2018 (S-KAT)
**Judgment:** 2019-09-26 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-10-01 (2001)
**Place:** Belagavi, Karnataka; city town: Belagavi; police station or unit: Second Regiment, Karnataka State Reserve Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 226; Constitution of India Art. 227; IPC 307; IPC 109; IPC 120B; IPC 34; Arms Act 1959 s.3; Arms Act 1959 s.25(1)(b)(a); Arms Act 1959 s.28; Arms Act 1959 s.29
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Second Regiment, Karnataka State Reserve Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Petitioner \[name withheld\], a constable in the Second Regiment of the Karnataka State Reserve Police (KSRP) at Belagavi, was dismissed from service in November 2003 following a departmental enquiry into gross misconduct arising from his arrest in Crime No. 78/2001 for attempt to murder and Arms Act offences. After being acquitted in the criminal trial (S.C. No. 126/2003) in 2005, he challenged his dismissal before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and subsequently before the High Court. The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed his writ petition and upheld the dismissal from service, holding that departmental proceedings operate under different standards of proof from criminal trials and that an acquittal recorded long after conclusion of disciplinary proceedings does not vitiate the penalty. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the KSAT in application No.2960/2005. Therefore, the petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157499296/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-hc-upholds-dismissal-of-ksrp-constable-despite-his-acquittal-in-criminal-case-148872); [thenewsminute.com](https://www.thenewsminute.com/karnataka/employee-cant-seek-benefit-acquittal-disciplinary-authority-karnataka-hc-110553)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] vs The Commandant, Second Regiment, Karnataka State Reserve Police & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-09-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'WP No. 104315/2018 (S-KAT)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157499296/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-hc-upholds-dismissal-of-ksrp-constable-despite-his-acquittal-in-criminal-case-148872', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.thenewsminute.com/karnataka/employee-cant-seek-benefit-acquittal-disciplinary-authority-karnataka-hc-110553', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Karnataka HC upheld dismissal of KSRP police constable for misconduct despite subsequent criminal trial acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0009)

## Bhalki Man vs The State of Maharashtra and Others (CW-2019-0018)

**Record:** CW-2019-0018 (compiler id CWC-0689); case GAP4-008
**Title:** Bhalki Man vs The State of Maharashtra and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: T.V. Nalawade; K.K. Sonawane
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2018
**Judgment:** 2019-10-17 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2018-10-14 (2018)
**Place:** Bidar, Karnataka; city town: Bhalki; police station or unit: Bhalki (Rural) Police Station, Bidar, Karnataka; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Circle Police Inspector, Bidar, Karnataka; Police, Bhalki (Rural) Police Station, Bidar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Bhalki man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) records the following account. The petitioner, a Pardhi-community woman of Jintur (Parbhani, Maharashtra), alleged her husband, a farmer, was picked up without stated reason by Karnataka police from Parbhani railway station on 14 October 2018 along with his car, gold ornaments and cash, kept at Bhalki (Rural) police station till 24 October 2018, and subjected to third-degree torture. The Bhalki police replied that he was picked up at Parbhani only on 23 October 2018 in Crime No.18 of 2018, produced before the Bhalki Circle Inspector that night and formally arrested on 24 October 2018, denying torture or seizure of valuables. The Court held that even on the police's own case the detention from 23 October 2018 till production before the Bhalki Magistrate on 24 October 2018 was illegal and unauthorised, called the 14-October version also probable, allowed the petition, and directed the Karnataka respondents to pay Rs.50,000 compensation within 45 days (8% interest on default). It sent copies to both State governments, expected departmental inquiry and action, and permitted recovery from the officers concerned. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Karnataka police (Respondent Nos.4 to 6) are hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the husband of Petitioner.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62360503/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** Order II
**display title redacted:** Bhalki Man vs The State of Maharashtra and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-10-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62360503/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; 10-day inter-state detention by Karnataka police held illegal, Rs. 50,000 awarded.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0018)

## Bidar Police Civil Police Constable (CPC 1100) vs The Superintendent of Police, Bidar and Another (CW-2021-0011)

**Record:** CW-2021-0011 (compiler id CWC-0690); case GAP10-004
**Title:** Bidar Police Civil Police Constable (CPC 1100) vs The Superintendent of Police, Bidar and Another
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; bench: Kalaburagi; judges: S. G. Pandit; M. G. S. Kamal
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 200927/2021 (S-KAT) (against KSAT Application No. 4115/2008, 24.07.2018)
**Judgment:** 2021-06-30 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bidar, Karnataka; city town: Bidar; police station or unit: Janavada Police Station, Bidar; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1966 r.28
**Officers (gated display forms):** Civil Police Constable (CPC 1100), Janavada Police Station, Bidar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Civil Police Constable, who joined in 1992 and served at Janavada Police Station, Bidar, faced a charge memo dated 7 August 2005 alleging he contracted a second marriage with Farzana Begum while his first wife \[name withheld\] was living, violating Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The disciplinary authority removed him from service in January 2007; the appellate authority modified the penalty to compulsory retirement in April 2007, and the KSAT dismissed his application in 2018. The Division Bench found no infirmity or illegality by the respondents or the KSAT, noting compulsory retirement is the prescribed penalty for second marriage, and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> we do not find any infirmity or illegality having been committed either by the respondents or by the KSAT

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194416707/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Bidar Police Civil Police Constable (CPC 1100) vs The Superintendent of Police, Bidar and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-06-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 200927/2021 (S-KAT) (against KSAT Application No. 4115/2008, 24.07.2018)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194416707/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld compulsory retirement of constable for bigamy; service-discipline matter, no civilian victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2021-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0011)

## Chikodi Man vs The State of Karnataka & Ors. (CW-2022-0009)

**Record:** CW-2022-0009 (compiler id CWC-0192); case SWDISPRO-008; aliases: CWC-1466
**Title:** Chikodi Man vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; bench: Dharwad; judges: Suraj Govindaraj
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 115362 of 2019 (GM-Police) / 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1121
**Judgment:** 2022-06-10 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-04-10 (2019)
**Place:** Belagavi, Karnataka; city town: Chikodi; police station or unit: Ankali Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226; CrPC s.46; CrPC s.49
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Ankali Police Station; Police Sub-Inspector, Chikodi Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Chikodi man, age 30 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. The petitioner, a 30-year-old law student, was arrested pursuant to a non-bailable warrant in a cheque bounce case, handcuffed without justification, paraded in Ankali market place, and transported in a public KSRTC bus in handcuffs. The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that routine handcuffing without recorded reasons violates Article 21 and Supreme Court precedents in Prem Shankar Shukla and Sunil Batra. The High Court awarded Rs 2,00,000 compensation to the petitioner with liberty to the State to recover it from the delinquent officers, and issued statewide mandatory directions on handcuffing, video conferencing, and body-worn cameras for arresting officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case, there being no justification which has been provided by the respondents for handcuffing the petitioner since neither any objections are filed nor is any affidavit filed by the Arresting Officer.

**Sources (5):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144592799/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-body-cameras-handcuffing-guidelines-accused-201502); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/07/06/karnataka-high-court-grants-compensation-to-a-law-student-who-was-arrested-and-handcuffed/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/arrested-accused-undertrial-prisoner-can-be-handcuffed-only-in-extreme-circumstances-after-recording-reasons-karnataka-high-court); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-handcuffing-accused-extreme-circumstance-guidelines-compensation-202583)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13.5
**display title redacted:** Chikodi Man vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-06-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1121', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144592799/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-body-cameras-handcuffing-guidelines-accused-201502', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/07/06/karnataka-high-court-grants-compensation-to-a-law-student-who-was-arrested-and-handcuffed/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/arrested-accused-undertrial-prisoner-can-be-handcuffed-only-in-extreme-circumstances-after-recording-reasons-karnataka-high-court', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-handcuffing-accused-extreme-circumstance-guidelines-compensation-202583', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Karnataka HC held illegal handcuffing and public parading of accused violated Art 21, awarded Rs 2 lakh compensation, and directed recovery from delinquent officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0009)

## CISF Constable and others v. Union of India & Ors. (CW-2022-0010)

**Record:** CW-2022-0010 (compiler id CWC-0481); case SWCUSTOD-011
**Title:** CISF Constable and others v. Union of India & Ors.
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: Alok Aradhe; J.M. Khazi
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 5651 of 2017 with connected writ petitions
**Judgment:** 2022-06-15 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2015-05-01 (2015)
**Place:** Mysuru, Karnataka; city town: Mysuru; police station or unit: CISF unit, BRBNMPL, Mysuru; force: central_armed
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CISF unit, BRBNMPL, Mysuru; Constable, CISF unit, BRBNMPL, Mysuru; Constable, CISF unit, BRBNMPL, Mysuru; Constable, CISF unit, BRBNMPL, Mysuru; Constable, CISF unit, BRBNMPL, Mysuru; Constable, CISF unit, BRBNMPL, Mysuru; Constable, CISF unit, BRBNMPL, Mysuru; Constable, CISF unit, BRBNMPL, Mysuru (8 in record)
**Victims:** Mysuru woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

add: appellants were acquitted in the criminal trial but the Division Bench held (para 23) criminal acquittal does not vitiate the disciplinary finding of misconduct; date range of incidents per complaint is March-June 2015, not only May-June. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28837634/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-cisf-constables-dismissal-from-service-sexual-harassment-202028)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** CISF Constable and others v. Union of India & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-06-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.A. No. 5651 of 2017 with connected writ petitions', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28837634/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-cisf-constables-dismissal-from-service-sexual-harassment-202028', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writ appeal; dismissal of 8 CISF constables upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0010)

## Sri Bengaluru Man vs Official Liquidator of M/s India Holiday (Pvt.) Ltd. (in liquidation) (CW-2022-0013)

**Record:** CW-2022-0013 (compiler id CWC-0193); case SWILLEGA-018
**Title:** Sri Bengaluru Man vs Official Liquidator of M/s India Holiday (Pvt.) Ltd. (in liquidation)
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: Suraj Govindaraj
**Case number / citation:** Company Application No. 96 of 2022 in Company Petition No. 26 of 2008 / 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1162
**Judgment:** 2022-07-07 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated (2022)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka; city town: Bengaluru; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Companies (Court) Rules 1959 r.6; Companies (Court) Rules 1959 r.9
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Officer (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bengaluru man, age 56 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Karnataka High Court awarded Rs 5,00,000 compensation to a 56-year-old man who was wrongfully arrested by police under a company court warrant issued against an ex-director of a company in liquidation, solely because the applicant shared a similar father's name. Despite the applicant's explicit protests that he was not the person named in the warrant, the police failed to verify his identity. The court held that arresting an innocent person without identity verification violates Article 21, directed the State to pay compensation with liberty to recover from the arresting officers, and ordered the DGP Karnataka to frame SOP guidelines and train arresting officers on identity verification. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is rather shocking that a person has been arrested without ascertaining whether he was the person who was required to be arrested and that the warrant had been issued against him. Though the arrestee had disputed that he was the person named in the warrant and the applicability of the warrant to him, his identification was not cross-checked and verified resulting an innocent person being arrested.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55329810/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-5-lakh-compensation-innocent-person-arrested-warrant-sop-dgp-203507)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Sri Bengaluru Man vs Official Liquidator of M/s India Holiday (Pvt.) Ltd. (in liquidation)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-07-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1162', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55329810/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-5-lakh-compensation-innocent-person-arrested-warrant-sop-dgp-203507', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Karnataka HC awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation for illegal arrest of wrong person on warrant without identity verification, with liberty to recover from arresting police officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0013)

## Belthangady Man v. State of Karnataka and others (CW-2023-0002)

**Record:** CW-2023-0002 (compiler id CWC-0191); case SWDISPRO-021; aliases: CWC-1465
**Title:** Belthangady Man v. State of Karnataka and others
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: M. Nagaprasanna
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 24832 of 2022 (GM-POLICE)
**Judgment:** 2023-01-19 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-12-02 (2022)
**Place:** Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka; city town: Belthangady; police station or unit: Punjalkatte Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 21; CrPC s.41; CrPC s.41A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Punjalkatte Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Belthangady man, age 23 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Advocate Kuldeep (23) of Puthila village, Belthangady, who held a civil-court injunction protecting his road access, was dragged from his home on 2 December 2022 when the Sub-Inspector caught him by the neck, dragged and booted him to Punjalkatte station, registering Crime 94/2022 (Sections 447/379 IPC) only afterwards. The bail court recorded the assault and ill-treatment during arrest, and the advocate's 9 December 2022 complaint against the officers was registered as Crime 1/2023 only after the High Court's intervention. The High Court held the arrest grossly illegal and violative of Arnesh Kumar safeguards, awarded Rs 3,00,000 compensation payable within two weeks, and ordered a departmental enquiry against the SI and his cohorts with recovery of compensation from the guilty officers' salaries. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The arrest of the petitioner is held to be illegal in view of the preceding analysis and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of ARNESH KUMAR, the petitioner becomes entitled to compensation to be paid by the State which is assessed at Rs.3,00,000/-.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/advocate-454997.pdf); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/karnataka-high-court-orders-3-lakh-compensation-grossly-illegal-arrest-assault-advocate-police); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-directs-state-govt-to-pay-3-lakh-to-advocate-arrested-illegally-by-police-219658); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12477038/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Belthangady Man v. State of Karnataka and others
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-01-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 24832 of 2022 (GM-POLICE)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/advocate-454997.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/karnataka-high-court-orders-3-lakh-compensation-grossly-illegal-arrest-assault-advocate-police', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-directs-state-govt-to-pay-3-lakh-to-advocate-arrested-illegally-by-police-219658', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12477038/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment text verified from judgment PDF; arrest held illegal, Rs 3 lakh compensation with DE ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0002)

## Bengaluru Police Police Head Constable (HC-126) vs The State of Karnataka and Others (CW-2024-0028)

**Record:** CW-2024-0028 (compiler id CWC-0691); case GAP10-006
**Title:** Bengaluru Police Police Head Constable (HC-126) vs The State of Karnataka and Others
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: S. G. Pandit; C. M. Poonacha
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 31065 of 2019 (S), NC: 2024:KHC:35037-DB (against KSAT Application No. 7479/2010, 28.02.2019)
**Judgment:** 2024-08-30 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-03-12 (2006)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka; city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: 1st Battalion, KSRP; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable (HC-126), 1st Battalion, KSRP (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. KSRP Head Constable contracted a first marriage in 1999 and a second marriage with Nagarathna on 12 March 2006 while the first subsisted, without divorce (obtained later in 2007) or government permission. The enquiry proved the charge on the first wife's evidence plus the kalyana mantap receipt and invitation card. The Commandant dismissed him; the appellate authority substituted reduction of pay to the minimum of the PC scale for five years, affirmed in revision and by the KSAT. The Division Bench held the bigamy charge proved on preponderance of probabilities, ruled acquittal in the Section 498A criminal case immaterial, noted the 2001 circular prescribes compulsory retirement so the pay-cut was lenient, and rejected the writ petition as without merit. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159226099/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Bengaluru Police Police Head Constable (HC-126) vs The State of Karnataka and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-08-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 31065 of 2019 (S), NC: 2024:KHC:35037-DB (against KSAT Application No. 7479/2010, 28.02.2019)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159226099/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld pay-cut penalty for KSRP constable's bigamy; service-discipline matter, no civilian victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0028)

## Bengaluru Police Head Constable vs The State of Karnataka (CW-2025-0031)

**Record:** CW-2025-0031 (compiler id CWC-0692); case GAP10-003
**Title:** Bengaluru Police Head Constable vs The State of Karnataka
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: H. P. Sandesh
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1562/2021 (against Spl.C.C. No. 383/2018, Special Judge (PC Act), Bengaluru, 29.09.2021)
**Judgment:** 2025-05-02 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2017-07-15 (2017)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka; city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: Bagalagunte Police Station, Bengaluru; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act s.8; PC Act s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Bagalagunte Police Station, Bengaluru (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bengaluru resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 4 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Head Constable of Bagalagunte Police Station demanded Rs.20,000, settled at Rs.10,000, from an accused in Crime No.238/2017 to compromise the matter, receiving Rs.1,000 on 30 June 2017. The complainant recorded the conversation and approached the ACB, which laid a trap on 15 July 2017 in which the accused pocketed marked notes and both hand washes turned pink. The Special Court convicted him in 2021, imposing 3 years RI with Rs.50,000 fine under Section 8 and 4 years RI with Rs.50,000 fine under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. Justice Sandesh dismissed the appeal, holding demand and acceptance proved through the complainant, panch and trap witnesses, call records and the FSL voice-comparison report, with minor discrepancies not shaking the prosecution case.

> there is a material with regard to the demand and acceptance and the same is also spoken by P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47081662/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 46
**display title redacted:** Bengaluru Police Head Constable vs The State of Karnataka
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Karnataka High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Karnataka High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1562/2021 (against Spl.C.C. No. 383/2018, Special Judge (PC Act), Bengaluru, 29.09.2021)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-05-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1562/2021 (against Spl.C.C. No. 383/2018, Special Judge (PC Act), Bengaluru, 29.09.2021)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47081662/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed appeal; ACB-trap bribery conviction of head constable (3+4 years RI) confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0031)

## Dakshina Kannada Man vs State Of Karnataka (CW-2025-0062)

**Record:** CW-2025-0062 (compiler id CWC-1342); case cop-ka-hc-2
**Title:** Dakshina Kannada Man vs State Of Karnataka
**Court:** High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; judges: M. Nagaprasanna
**Case number / citation:** WP No. 11260 of 2025 (GM-POLICE)
**Judgment:** 2025-09-09 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-12-17 (2022)
**Place:** Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka; police station or unit: Dharmasthala Police Station, Bantwal Division; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Sections 302, 323, 392 r/w 34 IPC; Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bantwal Division, Dakshina Kannada; Deputy Superintendent of Police, DCRB, S.P. Office, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore (2 in record)
**Victims:** Dakshina Kannada man; Dakshina Kannada man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court allowed the writ petition holding the investigation in Crime No.91 of 2022 (Dharmasthala) was absolutely shoddy and directed re-investigation by a Special Investigation Team to be constituted within 4 weeks, to file its final report within 4 months, staying further proceedings in Special Case No.60 of 2023 till then.

> what would unmistakably emerge is, absolute shoddy investigation.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155259619/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** Judgment reasoning
**display title redacted:** Dakshina Kannada Man vs State Of Karnataka
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-09-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'WP No. 11260 of 2025 (GM-POLICE)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155259619/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** summary names two officers in violation of no-names rule; court_quote is petitioner's representation extracted at pages 14-15 ('at para 13 to 16 has passed strictures'), not the judge's own words; summary falsely claims reinvestigation by CID and departmental inquiry ordered - operative order constitutes Special Investigation Team (SIT), expressly not CBI/CID, with no departmental direction in closing directions
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2025-0062](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0062)

## Bengaluru Woman vs The State of Karnataka & Ors. (CW-2026-0005)

**Record:** CW-2026-0005 (compiler id CWC-0195); case KARNAT-010
**Title:** Bengaluru Woman vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: Anu Sivaraman; Vijaykumar A. Patil
**Case number / citation:** W.P.H.C. No. 113/2025 / 2026:KHC:3951-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-01-23 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-10-14 (2025)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka; city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: Gangammana Gudi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226; CrPC s.41; CrPC s.57; CrPC s.167
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Gangammana Gudi Police Station; Police Inspector, Gangammana Gudi Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Bengaluru man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

In a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of the detenue, the Karnataka High Court found that the detenue, a Bengaluru man, was illegally picked up and detained in custody at Gangammana Gudi Police Station from 14 October 2025 before an FIR was registered. The Division Bench declared the pre-FIR detention unlawful and violative of the constitutional safeguards under Article 21 and the statutory arrest procedures. The court ordered the State to pay Rs 2,00,000 in compensation along with Rs 50,000 in costs to the petitioner, granting liberty to recover the sums from the delinquent police officers following a departmental enquiry. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is declared that the arrest of the husband of the petitioner (detenue) from 14.10.2025 till the filing of the first information report is illegal and contrary to the procedure of arrest.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116434690/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Bengaluru Woman vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-01-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026:KHC:3951-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116434690/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Karnataka HC Division Bench held pre-FIR detention of petitioner husband illegal, awarded Rs 2 lakh compensation plus Rs 50,000 costs with recovery from erring officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0005)

## State of Karnataka & Ors. vs Munirabad Police Police Head Constable (CW-2026-0046)

**Record:** CW-2026-0046 (compiler id CWC-0808); case GAP2-28-001
**Title:** State of Karnataka & Ors. vs Munirabad Police Police Head Constable
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; bench: Dharwad; judges: M. I. Arun; B. Muralidhara Pai
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 106139 of 2024 (S-KAT) / 2026:KHC-D:2846-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-02-23 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2017-01-11 (2017)
**Place:** Koppal, Karnataka; city town: Munirabad; police station or unit: Indian Reserve Battalion / Special Reserve Force, Munirabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Special Reserve Force (disciplinary authority: Commandant, Indian Reserve Battalion, Munirabad) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Karnataka High Court Division Bench at Dharwad (M.I. Arun and B. Muralidhara Pai JJ., 23 February 2026) allowed the State writ, set aside the KAT relief and sustained the compulsory retirement of Head Constable. The court recorded his admitted continuous absence from 11 January 2017 to 15 March 2022, over five years, attributed only to matrimonial discord and depression. It held such long absence must be treated as wilful, that unauthorised absence in a disciplined force must be viewed very seriously, and that compulsory retirement rather than dismissal was just, fair and reasonable. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the fact that he was continuously absent from 11.01.2017 to 15.03.2022 i.e., for a period of more than five years, has to be considered as willful absence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162113100/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** State of Karnataka & Ors. vs Munirabad Police Police Head Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-02-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2026:KHC-D:2846-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162113100/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** State's writ allowed; Tribunal relief set aside; compulsory retirement for 5+ years absence sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0046](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0046)

## Kutta Man v. State of Karnataka and Another (CW-2026-0029)

**Record:** CW-2026-0029 (compiler id CWC-0600); case SWILLEGA-021
**Title:** Kutta Man v. State of Karnataka and Another
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: M. Nagaprasanna
**Case number / citation:** CRL.P No. 7712 of 2026 / 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 248
**Judgment:** 2026-07-15 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-04-19 (2026)
**Place:** Kodagu, Karnataka; city town: Kutta; police station or unit: Kutta Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** BNS 64(1); BNS 238; BNS 239; BNS 351; BNS 3(5)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Arresting / Investigating Officer(s), Kutta Police Station, Kodagu (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kutta man, age 55 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Karnataka High Court held that a Kodagu homestay owner's arrest by Kutta Police in April 2026, in a case over the alleged rape of a foreign guest, was illegal: the offences alleged against him personally were non-cognizable, he was not present when the alleged offence occurred, and the arrest did not comply with the safeguards in Arnesh Kumar and Sections 41/41A. He had been held for 13 days before bail. The High Court declined to quash the FIR but ordered the State to pay him Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation. On 22.09.2026 the Supreme Court dismissed the State of Karnataka's special leave petition against that order.

> In the case at hand, in view of the preceding analysis, the arrest of the petitioner is held to be manifestly illegal and in patent violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in ARNESH KUMAR supra. The inevitable legal consequence of such a finding is that the petitioner becomes entitled to compensation payable by the State for the unlawful invasion of his liberty and dignity. This Court deems it appropriate to assess such compensation at ₹5,00,000/-, to be paid by the State to the petitioner.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/15/kahc0103716320261-686997.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/illegal-arrest-5-lakh-compensation-kodagu-homestay-owner-us-tourist-rape-541365); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/karnataka-hc-orders-5-lakh-compensation-to-coorg-homestay-owner-illegally-arrested-for-not-reporting-rape-of-tourist); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-refuses-interfere-compensation-awarded-illegal-arrest-kodagu-homestay-case-551569)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** Kutta Man v. State of Karnataka and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary', 'court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Later proceedings: Supreme Court order of 22.09.2026 in SLP (Crl.) No. 16734/2026 read; summary rewritten from the High Court findings (the previous text was a verifier note).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-07-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 248', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-25
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2026-09-22', 'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/23/51123202622374625order22-sep-2026-702080.pdf', 'outcome': 'dismissed'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/15/kahc0103716320261-686997.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/illegal-arrest-5-lakh-compensation-kodagu-homestay-owner-us-tourist-rape-541365', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/karnataka-hc-orders-5-lakh-compensation-to-coorg-homestay-owner-illegally-arrested-for-not-reporting-rape-of-tourist', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary order verified: arrest declared illegal; Rs.5 lakh compensation; FIR quash refused.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0029)

## Bengaluru Man and Another v. R. Shruthi and Others (CW-2026-0034)

**Record:** CW-2026-0034 (compiler id CWC-0598); case SWILLEGA-019
**Title:** Bengaluru Man and Another v. R. Shruthi and Others
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: Suraj Govindaraj
**Case number / citation:** WP No. 30608 of 2015 (GM-POLICE) / 2026:KHC:40856
**Judgment:** 2026-08-04 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-08-16 (2014)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka; city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: Vidyaranyapura Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 41; CrPC 41A; CrPC 438(3); Passports Act 1967
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Vidyaranyapura Police Station, Bengaluru (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bengaluru man, age 68; Bengaluru man, age 31 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 9 lakh (Rs 9,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. A Bengaluru man, protected by a subsisting anticipatory-bail order in a matrimonial complaint, was apprehended at Bengaluru airport on 16-08-2014 on a Look Out Circular, handed to the Vidyaranyapura Inspector, detained despite producing the bail order, and had his passport seized. The court held the LOC, arrest, detention and passport seizure illegal and violative of Sections 41, 41-A and 438(3) CrPC, the Passports Act and Article 21. It ordered the Commissioner of Police to pay Rs. 5 lakh to petitioner. 2 and Rs. 4 lakh to petitioner. 1 within twelve weeks, with liberty to recover from the Inspector after hearing. It also directed reconsideration of departmental action against the Inspector and statewide circulation of arrest safeguards for matrimonial disputes. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is declared that the issuance of the Look Out Circular against Petitioner2, his arrest and detention on 16.08.2014, and the seizure of his passport, were illegal and in violation of Sections 41, 41-A and 438(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Passports Act, 1967, and the fundamental right of Petitioner2 to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

**Sources (4):** [thebarbulletin.com](https://thebarbulletin.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/P-Javara-Setty-vs-R-Shruthi.pdf); [thebarbulletin.com](https://thebarbulletin.com/karnataka-hc-compensation-illegal-arrest-anticipatory-bail/); [lawtrend.in](https://lawtrend.in/karnataka-high-court-mandates-14-day-inquiry-before-matrimonial-dispute-arrests/); [shoebhakim.com](https://shoebhakim.com/karnataka-high-court-matrimonial-disputes-arrest-guidelines-2026-adv-shoeb-hakim/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** order cl.(ii)
**display title redacted:** Bengaluru Man and Another v. R. Shruthi and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 900,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026:KHC:40856', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://thebarbulletin.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/P-Javara-Setty-vs-R-Shruthi.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://thebarbulletin.com/karnataka-hc-compensation-illegal-arrest-anticipatory-bail/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawtrend.in/karnataka-high-court-mandates-14-day-inquiry-before-matrimonial-dispute-arrests/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://shoebhakim.com/karnataka-high-court-matrimonial-disputes-arrest-guidelines-2026-adv-shoeb-hakim/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary order verified: LOC/arrest/detention declared illegal; Rs.9 lakh total compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0034)

## Bengaluru Man vs State of Karnataka & Anr. (CW-2026-0037)

**Record:** CW-2026-0037 (compiler id CWC-0763); case GAP10-001; aliases: CWC-0197; CWC-1467
**Title:** Bengaluru Man vs State of Karnataka & Anr.
**Court:** Karnataka High Court; judges: M. Nagaprasanna
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Petition No. 13117 of 2026 / CNR: KAHC010598672026
**Judgment:** 2026-08-27 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-08-25 (2026)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka; city town: Bengaluru; police station or unit: Whitefield Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** BNSS 2023 s.35; BNSS 2023 s.528; CrPC s.482; Constitution Art. 21; BNS s.61; BNS s.338; BNS s.340(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating Officer, Whitefield Police Station; Assistant Commissioner of Police, Whitefield Sub-Division; Deputy Commissioner of Police, Whitefield Division (3 in record)
**Victims:** Bengaluru man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court records the following account. Petitioner a Bengaluru man, an attesting witness to a disputed Will, was issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on 25 August 2026 directing him to appear for inquiry on 27 August 2026, but the Whitefield Police arrested him on the same day prior to the scheduled appearance date. The Karnataka High Court declared the arrest illegal and an abuse of coercive power, holding that Section 35(3) BNSS explicitly prohibits arrest of a noticee before the appearance date unless reasoned non-compliance occurs. The court imposed exemplary costs of Rs 3,00,000 payable directly to the petitioner personally by the Investigating Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Police, and Deputy Commissioner of Police rather than the State exchequer, and directed departmental scrutiny of the officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The costs are, therefore, quantified at `3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) and shall be paid to the petitioner by the Investigating Officer, the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police, who are responsible for directing, permitting or facilitating the illegal arrest.

**Sources (4):** [s3.courtbook.in](https://s3.courtbook.in/2026/08/mr_k_n_mohan_reddy_v_state_of_karnataka_anot.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/28/oral-order-crl-p-13117-of-2026-696716.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-police-arresting-witness-will-despite-notice-appear-later-547615); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/karnataka-high-court-slams-police-raj-imposes-3-lakh-costs-on-whitefield-police-for-illegal-arrest)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Bengaluru Man vs State of Karnataka & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Karnataka High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'CNR: KAHC010598672026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://s3.courtbook.in/2026/08/mr_k_n_mohan_reddy_v_state_of_karnataka_anot.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/28/oral-order-crl-p-13117-of-2026-696716.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-police-arresting-witness-will-despite-notice-appear-later-547615', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/karnataka-high-court-slams-police-raj-imposes-3-lakh-costs-on-whitefield-police-for-illegal-arrest', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Karnataka HC declared arrest prior to BNSS s.35(3) notice appearance date illegal, imposing Rs 3 lakh exemplary costs personally on IO, ACP, and DCP.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0037)

## Sri Dakshina Kannada Man vs State Of Karnataka (CW-2026-0069)

**Record:** CW-2026-0069 (compiler id CWC-1341); case cop-ka-hc-0
**Title:** Sri Dakshina Kannada Man vs State Of Karnataka
**Court:** High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; judges: M. Nagaprasanna
**Case number / citation:** WP No. 27908 of 2026 (GM-RES) / NC: 2026:KHC:47995
**Judgment:** 2026-09-02 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-07-25 (2026)
**Place:** Dakshina Kannada (Mangaluru), Karnataka; police station or unit: Kankanadi Town Police Station, Mangaluru City; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Kankanadi Town Police Station, Mangaluru City; Police Sub-Inspector, Kankanadi Town Police Station, Mangaluru City; Police Sub-Inspector, Kankanadi Town Police Station, Mangaluru City; Police Constable, Kankanadi Town Police Station, Mangaluru City (4 in record)
**Victims:** Dakshina Kannada man; Dakshina Kannada man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, quashed FIR in Crime No.102/2026 by Kankanadi Town Police Station qua the petitioners on the ground that Andar Bahar is a game of skill, quashed the JMFC (VI Court) Mangaluru remand order in N.C.No.02 of 2026 dated 25.07.2026, and directed return of illegally seized money/items/valuables under Property List No.116 of 2026 to petitioner2 following the unauthorized raid on 25.07.2026. No departmental/disciplinary action was ordered in the operative directions.

> Mandamus issues to respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 are directed to forthwith return the illegally seized money,

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91571849/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** Operative direction
**display title redacted:** Sri Dakshina Kannada Man vs State Of Karnataka
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'NC: 2026:KHC:47995', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91571849/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** court_quote is petitioner's prayer not the court's operative order and names an officer (Mr. \[name withheld\]) in violation of no-names rule; summary falsely claims court issued mandamus for strict departmental/disciplinary action and for deliberate concealment/fabrication and D.K. Basu/Arnesh Kumar violation - operative order is 'Writ Petition is allowed in part' with only 4 directions and no disciplinary direction; outcome_type strictures unsupported - no strictures/disciplinary ordered; supported adverse finding is quashing plus return of illegally seized money/unauthorized raid
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0069](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0069)

## Kottayam Police Head Constable v. State of Kerala (CW-1958-0005)

**Record:** CW-1958-0005 (compiler id CWC-1234); case GAP3-64-001
**Title:** Kottayam Police Head Constable v. State of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: Koshi C.J.; Vaidialingam J.
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1958 / AIR 1959 Ker 372
**Judgment:** 1958-12-17 (1958, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1957-01-29 (1957)
**Place:** Kottayam, Kerala; city town: Kottayam; police station or unit: Kottayam East Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 323
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Kottayam East Police Station; Head Constable, Kottayam East Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Kottayam man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. On 29 January 1957, head constable took the drunk a Kottayam man into custody and had him lodged at Kottayam East Police Station, where both accused head constables beat him with fists, elbows and blows to the feet until he collapsed; a Kottayam man died when his diseased spleen ruptured. The Sessions Court convicted accused 1 under Sections 304(2) and 323 IPC and accused 2 under Section 323 IPC. The Kerala High Court believed six constable eyewitnesses that both officers joined in belabouring the detainee, but held death was caused only by the rupture of an unknown diseased spleen. The court altered accused 1's conviction to Section 323 IPC with the maximum 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and confirmed accused 2's 6-month sentence. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The sentence has necessarily to be altered, but regard being had to the fact that accused 1 was misusing his position as a police officer to assault a helpless person whom he had taken into custody, we think it proper to sentence him to the maximum sentence prescribed for the-offence u/s 323, namely, rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/549809/ramakrishna-panicker-appellant-hash-state-of-kerala-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=118591182000&title=ramakrishna-panicker-vs-state-of-kerala)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Kottayam Police Head Constable v. State of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1959 Ker 372', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1958-12-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1959 Ker 372', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/549809/ramakrishna-panicker-appellant-hash-state-of-kerala-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=118591182000&title=ramakrishna-panicker-vs-state-of-kerala', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on CourtKutchehry; custodial beating convictions of two head constables sustained (A1 altered 304(2) to 323).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1958-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1958-0005)

## The State of Kerala and Anr. vs Kerala Police Police Constable (CW-1964-0002)

**Record:** CW-1964-0002 (compiler id CWC-0809); case GAP2-29-001
**Title:** The State of Kerala and Anr. vs Kerala Police Police Constable
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: Madhavan Nair J.
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal against O.P. No. 2905 of 1961 / AIR 1964 Ker 254; 1964 KLT 310; 1964 KLJ 1005
**Judgment:** 1964-03-09 (1964, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kerala; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Kerala High Court Division Bench allowed the State appeal against a Single Judge order that had quashed the dismissal of Police Constable. The Court held that the Circle Inspector who held the oral enquiry was competent under Rule 8 of the Kerala Police Departmental Enquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 read with the IG 1 August 1958 circular as a general authorisation. The Single Judge jurisdictional objection was found unsubstantial, the quashing order was discharged, and O.P. No. 2905 of 1961 was dismissed. The IG dismissal order, confirmed by Government after PSC consultation, therefore stands; the judgment does not state the underlying misconduct. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The only defect on which the learned Judge has held the disciplinary proceedings to be without jurisdiction being thus found to be unsubstantial, the order quashing the dismissal of the delinquent Police Constable has to be discharged.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/507922/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/720705/the-state-kerala-anr-vs-k-madhavan)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** The State of Kerala and Anr. vs Kerala Police Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1964-03-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1964 Ker 254; 1964 KLT 310; 1964 KLJ 1005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/507922/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/720705/the-state-kerala-anr-vs-k-madhavan', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench allowed State appeal; dismissal of Police Constable stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1964-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1964-0002)

## Thankamani, Kamakshy Panchayat Woman and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors. (CW-1991-0006)

**Record:** CW-1991-0006 (compiler id CWC-0811); case GAP2-29-003
**Title:** Thankamani, Kamakshy Panchayat Woman and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: K.G. Balakrishnan J.
**Case number / citation:** O.P. Nos. 8717 and 9100 of 1986 / 1993 ACJ 509
**Judgment:** 1991-11-18 (1991, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1986-10-22 (1986)
**Place:** Idukki, Kerala; city town: Thankamani, Kamakshy Panchayat; police station or unit: Kattappana Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Circle Inspector, Peerumade; Police Constable (P.C. 572), Kattappana Police Station; Circle Inspector, Thankamani raiding party; Sub-Inspector; Sub-Inspector (5 in record)
**Victims:** Thankamani, Kamakshy Panchayat woman; Thankamani, Kamakshy Panchayat woman; Thankamani, Kamakshy Panchayat man; Thankamani, Kamakshy Panchayat man; Thankamani, Kamakshy Panchayat man (48 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 60,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Kerala High Court (K.G. Balakrishnan, J.) held that Article 226 empowers compensation as a palliative where police violate Article 21, following Rudul Sah, Bhim Singh, PUDR v. State of Bihar and Sebastian Hongray. Accepting Commission evidence, medical records and affidavits for four of the 48 Thankamani petitioners, the Court awarded Rs.25,000 to a woman subjected to inhuman behaviour, Rs.15,000 to widow \[name withheld\] whose husband died in police firing, and Rs.10,000 each to a physically handicapped man shot in the head and a man ill-treated in custody. It directed the State to deposit Rs.60,000 with the Joint Registrar within three months and handed investigation of the pending criminal cases, mostly against police officers, to senior officers under a DIG. The general claim of Rs.50,000 each for all petitioners was rejected with liberty to move the civil court. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This, I think, is a fit case where this Court shall order compensation as a palliative measure.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/819001/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Thankamani, Kamakshy Panchayat Woman and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1991-11-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 60,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1993 ACJ 509', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/819001/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Art 226 compensation Rs.60,000 to four victims of Thankamani police excess; DIG-supervised probe ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1991-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1991-0006)

## Thiruvananthapuram Police Police Constable (A1) And Another vs State Of Kerala (CW-1993-0005)

**Record:** CW-1993-0005 (compiler id CWC-0202); case KERALA-002
**Title:** Thiruvananthapuram Police Police Constable (A1) And Another vs State Of Kerala
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. Jayachandra Reddy; G. N. Ray
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1986 / AIR 1994 SC 565
**Judgment:** 1993-11-24 (1993, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-12-18 (1980)
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala; city town: Thiruvananthapuram; police station or unit: Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (A1), Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram; Police Constable (A4), Central Crime Station, Thiruvananthapuram (2 in record)
**Victims:** Thiruvananthapuram man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. A Thiruvananthapuram man, picked up after a quarrel with an off-duty constable over plantains on 18 December 1980, was slapped, kicked and had his head dashed against the wall inside Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, and died of the injuries. The trial court convicted only two of the 21 accused policemen under Section 304 Part II IPC with five years rigorous imprisonment each, and the Kerala High Court dismissed both the accused's and the State's appeals. The Supreme Court accepted the eyewitness account of PWs 5 and 6 corroborated by medical evidence, dismissed the appeal, and ordered the convicted constables, who were on bail, to surrender and serve the remaining sentence.

> The two courts below have concurrently held that the evidence of P.W.5 as corroborated by the evidence of P.W.6 establishes the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and we see no grounds to come to a different conclusion. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143296/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/676541/sadasivan-mohanachandran-and-another-vs-state-of-kerala/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Thiruvananthapuram Police Police Constable (A1) And Another vs State Of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1994 SC 565', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1993-11-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1994 SC 565', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143296/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/676541/sadasivan-mohanachandran-and-another-vs-state-of-kerala/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court dismissed appeal of two Kerala police constables, upholding 5-year RI conviction under s.304 Part II for beating a Thiruvananthapuram man to death inside Fort Police Station.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1993-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1993-0005)

## Kochi Resident vs State of Kerala and Others (CW-1995-0008)

**Record:** CW-1995-0008 (compiler id CWC-0693); case GAP11-004
**Title:** Kochi Resident vs State of Kerala and Others
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: K.K. Usha
**Case number / citation:** AIR 1996 Ker 71
**Judgment:** 1995-07-31 (1995, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-10-16 (1990)
**Place:** Ernakulam, Kerala; city town: Kochi; police station or unit: Fort Cochin Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Kochi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 35,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. On 16 October 1990, during a hartal-day riot in Mattancherry/Fort Cochin, a mob of about 100 armed persons looted the petitioner's vegetarian hotel although the police had been warned the previous day and had assured deployment. The petitioner's employee reported to Fort Cochin Police Station during the looting and the petitioner telephoned the station, the Assistant Commissioner and the control room, but the police did not react. The State contended it was practically impossible to protect every shop during a widespread riot. The court found the loss could have been avoided with adequate and timely steps, held the State liable in public law for violation of the petitioner's fundamental right, and awarded Rs.35,000 with 12% interest, leaving the State free to recover it from the negligent officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I find that the 1st respondent is liable to compensate the petitioner for violation of his fundamental right.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/468805/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Kochi Resident vs State of Kerala and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1995-07-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 35,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 1996 Ker 71', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/468805/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; Rs 35,000 state liability for police failure to prevent riot looting.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1995-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1995-0008)

## Cherthala Man vs Union of India (CW-1997-0011)

**Record:** CW-1997-0011 (compiler id CWC-0694); case SWILLEGA-071
**Title:** Cherthala Man vs Union of India
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: K. A. Abdul Gafoor
**Case number / citation:** Not stated
**Judgment:** 1997-01-27 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-10-06 (1988)
**Place:** Alappuzha, Kerala (district at time: Alleppey); city town: Cherthala; police station or unit: Sherthala Police Station / Circle Inspector's Office; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Sherthala Police Station; Police Constable, Sherthala Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Sherthala Police Station; Circle Inspector, Sherthala (4 in record)
**Victims:** Cherthala man, age 24 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. A Cherthala man, 24, a mosaic-flooring worker who was not an accused in any case, went with his father to the Sherthala Circle Inspector's office on the morning of 5 October 1988 for questioning over stolen articles and was detained without production before any magistrate; he died of injuries on 6 October 1988, with police claiming suicide by a broken tube-light. The DGP's enquiry proved custody beyond 24 hours, from 9 a.m. on 5 October to after 1.30 p.m. on 6 October, and that he was arrayed as an accused only after the incident. The High Court held his fundamental rights were nakedly violated, termed it detention in illegal and unlawful custody for more than 24 hours, awarded Rs.3,00,000 compensation with Rs.2,500 costs, directed CBI investigation, and ordered the DSP to register a crime over the unlawful detention. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> detention of a citizen in illegal and unlawful custody for more than 24 hours, from 9 a.m. on 5.10.1988 to at least 1.30 p.m. on 6.10.1988, when he succumbed to injuries.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1655493/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Cherthala Man vs Union of India
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-01-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Kerala High Court judgment 1997-01-27', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1655493/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held death in >24-hr illegal custody of non-accused; Rs.3 lakh compensation, CBI probe and crime registration ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0011)

## Kochi Police Head Constable vs Commissioner of Police and Ors. (CW-1997-0017)

**Record:** CW-1997-0017 (compiler id CWC-0810); case GAP2-29-002
**Title:** Kochi Police Head Constable vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: K.S. Radhakrishnan J.
**Case number / citation:** O.P. No. 8526 of 1997 / (1997) 2 KLJ 351
**Judgment:** 1997-08-25 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ernakulam, Kerala; city town: Kochi; police station or unit: Cochin City Traffic Assistant Commissioner Office; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 419; IPC 420; IPC 34; Constitution Art. 311(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Cochin City Traffic Assistant Commissioner Office, Kochi (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kochi resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Kerala High Court (K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.) dismissed O.P. No. 8526 of 1997, upholding the Commissioner of Police, Cochin City order dated 04-04-1997 removing Head Constable from service following his conviction in C.C. No. 162 of 1993 (JFCM, Kochi) for cheating offences under IPC ss.419, 420 read with s.34. The Court applied S. Nagoor Meera to hold that action under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) need not await the pending criminal appeal (Crl.A. No. 98 of 1997, Sessions Court, Ernakulam) and that suspension of sentence does not bar removal. It noted the criminal court categorical finding that the petitioner conduct brought a bad name to the police force and warranted deterrent punishment (consecutive RI terms of one and two years plus fines payable to PW-1 as compensation). The removal was made subject to the result of the pending appeal, and the petitioner was given one month to vacate police quarters.

> I do not find any illegality in Ext.P1 order removing the petitioner from service.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/532072/chandrasekharan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Kochi Police Head Constable vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-08-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1997) 2 KLJ 351', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/532072/chandrasekharan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Single Bench dismissed O.P.; removal of convicted Head Constable upheld under Art 311(2) second proviso (a).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1997-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0017)

## Kerala Police Police Constable vs Superintendent of Police and Ors. (CW-2003-0012)

**Record:** CW-2003-0012 (compiler id CWC-0211); case KERALA-011
**Title:** Kerala Police Police Constable vs Superintendent of Police and Ors.
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: Jawahar Lal Gupta; M. Ramachandran
**Case number / citation:** W.A. Nos. 1276 & 1306 of 2003 / (2003) 12 KL CK 0018
**Judgment:** 2003-12-02 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-08-14 (1988)
**Place:** Kerala; police station or unit: Kerala Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Article 226; Constitution of India Article 309; Constitution of India Article 311; Kerala Police Act 1960 s.6; Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules 1958 Rule 8; Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules 1960
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Kerala Police; Police Constable, Kerala Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** Kerala man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. Two Kerala police constables on patrol duty detained a Kerala man, who was carrying a large sum of money, and released him after extorting and accepting a bribe of Rs. 20,000 each. Following a departmental enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal, both constables were ordered to be removed from service. The Kerala High Court dismissed their writ petitions and subsequent writ appeals, rejecting procedural objections and ruling that corruption by law enforcers warranted dismissal.

> The Appellants who were custodians of law had themselves committed acts of corruption. Their removal from service was the only way they deserved to be treated.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/559449/premachandran-mv-vs-superintendent-of-police-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Kerala Police Police Constable vs Superintendent of Police and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-12-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2003) 12 KL CK 0018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/559449/premachandran-mv-vs-superintendent-of-police-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Kerala HC Division Bench dismissed writ appeals of two police constables, upholding their removal from service for accepting bribes to release a detainee.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2003-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0012)

## Ernakulam Woman vs State of Kerala (CW-2005-0013)

**Record:** CW-2005-0013 (compiler id CWC-0814); case GAP2-30-003
**Title:** Ernakulam Woman vs State of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: A.K. Basheer J.
**Case number / citation:** O.P. No. 11681 of 1997 / (2005) 3 Ker LJ 404; AIR 2006 (NOC) 238 (Ker); 2006 Cri LJ 59
**Judgment:** 2005-07-06 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-05-24 (1997)
**Place:** Ernakulam, Kerala; city town: Ernakulam (Pulleppady); police station or unit: Vanitha Police Station, Ernakulam; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Vanitha Police Station, Ernakulam; Head Constable (woman), Vanitha Police Station, Ernakulam (2 in record)
**Victims:** Ernakulam woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Kerala High Court (A.K. Basheer, J.) allowed the writ petition, holding that Vanitha Police Station, Ernakulam illegally detained young housewife an Ernakulam woman for about 80 hours from 24 to 27 May 1997 without registering any crime, producing her before a Magistrate, or effecting an arrest, and lodged her against her will in the Palluruthy Relief Settlement among sickly and old destitutes. The Court held the detention violated her dignity and personal liberty and inflicted mental torture more baneful than physical torture, calling the police action reprehensible and liable to exemplary punishment. It directed the State to pay Rs.50,000 with 8% interest from 24 May 1997 within two months, citing D.K. Basu, Rudul Sah, Nilabati Behera and Saheli on public-law compensation. The individual police personnel are not named in the judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I have no hesitation to hold that the action of the Police personnel concerned is not only reprehensible but is also liable to be visited with exemplary punishment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1530485/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Ernakulam Woman vs State of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-07-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2005) 3 Ker LJ 404; AIR 2006 (NOC) 238 (Ker); 2006 Cri LJ 59', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1530485/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** O.P. allowed; 80-hour illegal detention and mental torture found; Rs.50,000 with 8% interest awarded.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2005-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0013)

## Pooyappally Man vs Pooyappally Man (CW-2007-0027)

**Record:** CW-2007-0027 (compiler id CWC-1235); case GAP3-66-001
**Title:** Pooyappally Man vs Pooyappally Man
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: J.B. Koshy
**Case number / citation:** Crl.R.P. No. 20 of 1999
**Judgment:** 2007-07-30 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-06-01 (1993)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala; city town: Pooyappally; police station or unit: Pooyappally Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 323
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Pooyappally Police Station, Kollam (1 in record)
**Victims:** Pooyappally man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 1,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. On 1 June 1993, auto-rickshaw driver \[name withheld\] was taken to Pooyappally police station after failing to stop instantly at a constable's signal, and inside the station constable slapped him on the left ear, causing bleeding and hearing loss that needed inpatient ENT treatment till 11 June 1993. The driver filed a private complaint, and the trial and appellate courts convicted the constable under Section 323 IPC with release on probation. The Kerala High Court held the complainant's version was supported by an independent occurrence witness and medical evidence, and dismissed the revision. The court confirmed the conviction, the probation release and Rs.1,000 compensation, remarking the appellate court had taken a very lenient view. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Both courts concurrently found that the version of PW1, supported by PW2, eye witness, and corroborated by medical evidence was correct. I see no ground to interfere in the same in the revisional jurisdiction and the conviction is confirmed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1286096/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Pooyappally Man vs Pooyappally Man
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.R.P. No. 20 of 1999', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2007-07-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.R.P. No. 20 of 1999', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1286096/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC order verified on Indian Kanoon; Section 323 conviction of on-duty constable for station-house assault confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0027)

## Venjaramoodu Police Head Constable vs State of Kerala (CW-2007-0031)

**Record:** CW-2007-0031 (compiler id CWC-1236); case GAP3-66-002
**Title:** Venjaramoodu Police Head Constable vs State of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: V. Ramkumar
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 446 of 2005 / 2007(4) KHC 774
**Judgment:** 2007-11-05 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-03-08 (1999)
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala; city town: Venjaramoodu; police station or unit: Venjaramoodu Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Venjaramoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram (1 in record)
**Victims:** Venjaramoodu resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. Head Constable of Venjaramoodu Police Station demanded Rs.500 from an accused in Crime No.17/99 for deleting his name from the accused array, and accepted Rs.300 in phenolphthalein-smeared notes in a VACB trap on 10 March 1999. The Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The Kerala High Court dismissed his appeal on 5 November 2007, holding the demand and knowing acceptance proved through the complainant's admissions and independent trap witnesses. The Supreme Court dismissed his further appeal on 13 August 2015, holding the High Court's confirmation of the 1-year concurrent sentences suffered no infirmity.

> Thus, the High Court concluded that there was sufficient material on record to show that the appellant was receiving illegal gratification pursuant to a demand made in that regard and that the learned Special Judge had not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the appellant.

**Sources (2):** [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=117002384300&title=a-sasidharan-vs-state-of-kerala); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121625441/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Venjaramoodu Police Head Constable vs State of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2007(4) KHC 774', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2007-11-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2007(4) KHC 774', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=117002384300&title=a-sasidharan-vs-state-of-kerala', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121625441/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment corroborated via SC order (Crl.A. 952/2008) and reporter citation; full HC text not directly fetched.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0031)

## S. M. vs State Of Kerala (CW-2008-0003)

**Record:** CW-2008-0003 (compiler id CWC-0214); case KERALA-014
**Title:** S. M. vs State Of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: A.K. Basheer
**Case number / citation:** O.P. No. 26679 of 2002
**Judgment:** 2008-02-13 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-06-30 (1999)
**Place:** Pathanamthitta, Kerala; city town: Mallappally; police station or unit: Keezhvaipur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Article 21; Constitution of India Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Keezhvaipur Police Station; Head Constable, Keezhvaipur Police Station; Head Constable, Keezhvaipur Police Station; Police Constable, Keezhvaipur Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Mallappally man, age 26; Mallappally woman; Mallappally boy, age 3 (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. a man was taken into illegal police custody on June 29, 1999, detained for over 24 hours at Keezhvaipur Police Station without registration of any case, and died of fatal internal abdominal injuries on June 30, 1999. The Kerala High Court held that the police's version was fabricated to conceal custodial torture, establishing a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Holding the State tortiously liable for the acts of its police officers, the High Court directed payment of Rs. 5,00,000 compensation with 9% interest to the victim's widow and minor son, and transferred the criminal investigation into the custodial death to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> UNVERIFIED — stated para-39 Article-21 quote absent from accessible judgment text (paras 32-40 missing from source). Replace with verified para-28 text: 'there had been a concerted effort on the part of the Police to fabricate or create documents apparently in a bid to camouflage or cover up the real incident.'

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/808112/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 39
**display title redacted:** S. M. vs State Of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-02-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'O.P. No. 26679 of 2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/808112/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Kerala High Court found custodial torture and death of Mohanan in illegal police custody, awarding Rs. 5 lakh compensation and transferring probe to CBI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 26, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}; {'age': 3, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 3-year-old boy'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2008-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0003)

## Pandalam Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State Of Kerala (CW-2008-0010)

**Record:** CW-2008-0010 (compiler id CWC-0213); case KERALA-013
**Title:** Pandalam Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State Of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: A.K. Basheer
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 721 of 2000
**Judgment:** 2008-06-30 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-07-08 (1998)
**Place:** Pathanamthitta, Kerala; city town: Pandalam; police station or unit: Pandalam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Pandalam Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Pandalam man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. Assistant Sub-Inspector of Pandalam Police Station was convicted for demanding and receiving illegal gratification to release an autorickshaw involved in an accident. The officer accepted Rs. 500 initially and was caught red-handed in a vigilance trap while receiving the remaining Rs. 500 at Prakash hotel. The Kerala High Court confirmed the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that the prosecution satisfactorily established the trap. Considering the appellant's age and lapse of time, the High Court reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to one year on each count to run concurrently, while maintaining the fines. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of guilty entered by the learned Special Judge. Therefore the order of conviction is confirmed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/821794/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Pandalam Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State Of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 721 of 2000', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2008-06-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 721 of 2000', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/821794/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Kerala High Court confirmed the PC Act conviction of Assistant Sub-Inspector for taking a bribe to release an autorickshaw, modifying sentence to one year.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0010)

## State of Kerala vs National Human Rights Commissioner (CW-2009-0029)

**Record:** CW-2009-0029 (compiler id CWC-0813); case GAP2-30-002
**Title:** State of Kerala vs National Human Rights Commissioner
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: S. Siri Jagan J.
**Case number / citation:** O.P. No. 30749 of 2001
**Judgment:** 2009-10-05 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kerala; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 s.18(3)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Kerala man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. Replace 'physical and mental torture of a boy, a minor boy, in unlawful police custody' with 'physical and mental torture of a minor boy in unlawful police custody'; drop 'to the victim' name forms elsewhere. No other summary change needed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This is a case where a small boy has been brutally manhandled by the police officials on allegations of theft.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1492042/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3 (quote sits inside para 3 after the Section 18(3) extract)
**display title redacted:** State of Kerala vs National Human Rights Commissioner
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-10-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'O.P. No. 30749 of 2001', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1492042/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed State challenge; NHRC prosecution and Rs.3 lakh interim-relief directions sustained with own torture finding.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2009-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0029)

## Ettumanoor Police Deputy Superintendent of Police vs State of Kerala (CW-2009-0034)

**Record:** CW-2009-0034 (compiler id CWC-0812); case GAP2-30-001
**Title:** Ettumanoor Police Deputy Superintendent of Police vs State of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: K. Balakrishnan Nair J.; P. Bhavadasan J.
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 86/2006, 193/2006 and 1796/2007
**Judgment:** 2009-12-10 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-02-15 (2005)
**Place:** Kottayam, Kerala; city town: Ettumanoor; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 201; IPC 364; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malappuram (posting at relevant time) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ettumanoor man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Kerala High Court Division Bench (judgment by P. Bhavadasan, J.) dismissed the appeals of \[name withheld\], a serving Deputy Superintendent of Police, and a second accused against their life sentences imposed by the Sessions Court, Kottayam (S.C. No. 145/2005) for the gruesome murder of an Ettumanoor man, a former driver, on 15 February 2005, and dismissed the State appeal seeking the death sentence. The Court held the prosecution proved murder by the guardian of law with hired accomplices over a personal grudge, with the body dismembered after death. It held that although a police officer crime must normally be viewed very seriously, the case fell outside the rarest-of-rare category, so capital punishment was refused. The Supreme Court dismissed \[name withheld\] further appeal (Crl.A. No. 1774/2010) on 4 February 2013, leaving the life sentence final. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The case from which these appeals arise reveals a gruesome and horrendous murder by the guardian of law along with four others, three of whom are mercenaries.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1756335/); [orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net](https://orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net/cms-cnr-data/supreme_court_data/pdf_files/jonew/judis/40012.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 1
**display title redacted:** Ettumanoor Police Deputy Superintendent of Police vs State of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 86/2006, 193/2006 and 1796/2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2009-12-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 86/2006, 193/2006 and 1796/2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1756335/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net/cms-cnr-data/supreme_court_data/pdf_files/jonew/judis/40012.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB confirmed life sentences of DySP \[name withheld\] and co-accused for murder; State death-sentence appeal dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0034)

## Lakshadweep Police Sub Inspector of Police vs State of Kerala (CW-2010-0024)

**Record:** CW-2010-0024 (compiler id CWC-1237); case GAP3-67-001
**Title:** Lakshadweep Police Sub Inspector of Police vs State of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: V. Ramkumar
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 379 of 2003 / 2010 (1) KLD 581
**Judgment:** 2010-03-11 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-03-15 (1999)
**Place:** Ernakulam, Kerala; city town: Kochi; police station or unit: Lakshadweep Police Special Branch Office, Cochin; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub Inspector of Police, Lakshadweep Police Special Branch Office, Cochin (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kochi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. Sub Inspector of the Lakshadweep Police Special Branch at Cochin demanded Rs.250 from labour contractor \[name withheld\] for issuing the police clearance certificate needed for a Minicoy Island entry permit, and accepted it in a CBI trap in March 1999. The Special Judge (SPE/CBI-II), Ernakulam convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, sentencing him to 6 months and 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fines. The Kerala High Court held the prosecution proved demand and acceptance through testimony, contemporaneous mahazars, the phenolphthalein test and the accused's conduct. The court dismissed the appeal confirming conviction and sentence, observing the trial judge had erred, if at all, on the side of leniency.

> After a careful re-appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, I have no hesitation to conclude that the conviction against the appellant was rightly recorded by the trial judge. I, therefore, confirm the conviction recorded by the court below against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the P.C. Act.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/557738/joseph-james-jose-appellant-hash-state-of-kerala-respondent/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd26a607dba63d7e69016)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Lakshadweep Police Sub Inspector of Police vs State of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2010 (1) KLD 581', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2010-03-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2010 (1) KLD 581', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/557738/joseph-james-jose-appellant-hash-state-of-kerala-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd26a607dba63d7e69016', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on CourtKutchehry (casemine 403); PC Act bribery conviction of SI confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0024)

## Kozhikode Man vs State of Kerala (CW-2010-0018)

**Record:** CW-2010-0018 (compiler id CWC-0695); case GAP11-006
**Title:** Kozhikode Man vs State of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan; P. Bhavadasan
**Case number / citation:** A.S. No. 79 of 1997 / 2010 (4) KLT 261
**Judgment:** 2010-08-31 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1985-01-09 (1985)
**Place:** Kozhikode, Kerala; city town: Kozhikode; police station or unit: Chevayur Police Station, Kozhikode; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Kozhikode man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 80,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. On 9 January 1985, the plaintiff, then a 10th-standard student, suffered serious head injuries inside his school campus at Vellimadukunnu, was hospitalised for nearly a month, and underwent emergency burr-hole surgery for extradural haemorrhage. He alleged police entered the campus and lathi-charged students, supported by a fellow student and hospital records, while the State claimed he fell while fleeing but led no evidence. The Division Bench reversed the trial court's dismissal, held on preponderance of probability that the injuries were attributable to police action, rejected the Police Act limitation bar since the assault was no part of official duty, and decreed Rs.80,000 with 6% interest with costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We, on the totality of the materials on record, hold that on a preponderance of probability, the plaintiff has established that the injuries sustained by him were attributable to the actions of police Officials.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/209224/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Protest policing', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15 (quote closes para 15, which begins '15. The version of PW2...')
**display title redacted:** Kozhikode Man vs State of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-08-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 80,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2010 (4) KLT 261', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/209224/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB judgment verified; Rs 80,000 decreed for police lathi assault on schoolboy.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0018)

## Kerala Police personnel vs The State of Kerala (with Crl.R.P. No. 2924 of 2009) (CW-2010-0019)

**Record:** CW-2010-0019 (compiler id CWC-0696); case GAP11-001
**Title:** Kerala Police personnel vs The State of Kerala (with Crl.R.P. No. 2924 of 2009)
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: V. K. Mohanan
**Case number / citation:** Crl.R.P. Nos. 2924 and 3906 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2010-09-16 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-02-12 (1988)
**Place:** Kannur, Kerala; city town: Kannur; police station or unit: Kannur Town Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 342; IPC 427
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Kerala Police, Kannur; Police personnel, Kerala Police, Kannur (2 in record)
**Victims:** Kannur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0 yrs; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. On 12 February 1988, following critical reports against the SP Kannur, police picked up a Kannur man, Editor, Printer and Publisher of the evening daily Sudhinam, from Fort Road, Kannur, and confined him in the Kannur Town lock-up from 8.30 p.m. till production at 4.30 a.m. despite bailable offences and offered sureties; the same night police broke open the Sudhinam office and Jyothi Printing Press, dismantled machinery and posted a picket. The CBI charge-sheeted 12 police personnel; the trial court convicted four and the appellate court retained only the Sections 342 and 427 convictions of accused Nos.2 and 3. In revision the High Court held the detention was wrongful confinement and the search unjustified, dismissed both revisions, and confirmed imprisonment till rising of court with Rs.25,000 compensation each under Section 357(3) CrPC, while confirming acquittals on conspiracy and assault charges. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I find no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by both the trial court as well as the appellate court against the revision petitioners under Section 342 of I.P.C.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/498073/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 98 (quote sits at end of para 98; '99. The next challenge...' follows)
**display title redacted:** Kerala Police personnel vs The State of Kerala (with Crl.R.P. No. 2924 of 2009)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.R.P. Nos. 2924 and 3906 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2010-09-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.R.P. Nos. 2924 and 3906 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/498073/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed both revisions; s.342/427 IPC convictions of two police officers with Rs.25,000 each compensation confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0019)

## K. Lakshmana, I.P.S. v. C.B.I. and Anr. (CW-2011-0009)

**Record:** CW-2011-0009 (compiler id CWC-0550); case SWFAKEEN-011
**Title:** K. Lakshmana, I.P.S. v. C.B.I. and Anr.
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan; S.S. Satheesachandran
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 2216 of 2010 with Criminal R.P. No. 734 of 2011 / (2011) 06 KL CK 0012
**Judgment:** 2011-06-14 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1970-02-18 (1970)
**Place:** Wayanad, Kerala (district at time: Kannur); city town: Thirunelli; police station or unit: Mananthawady Police Station (Crime 28/70); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** K. Lakshmana (Deputy Superintendent of Police) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Thirunelli man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

Naxalite leader a Thirunelli man was captured alive by a CRPF-police combing party at Thirunelli on 18 February 1970 and held in custody with hands tied, but instead of being produced, was shot dead by Constable at the command of DySP K. Lakshmana, who then lodged a false encounter complaint (Crime 28/70). The truth emerged only in 1998 when the shooter's confessional note surfaced, leading to a CBI case resting on CRPF Constable's testimony. The Special Judge (SPE/CBI) convicted Lakshmana under s.302/34 IPC with life plus Rs.10,000 fine and acquitted DIG (A3). The Kerala High Court held the encounter story false and invented, dismissed both the appeal and the victim's brother's revision for death enhancement, and affirmed the life sentence.

> The case of encounter death of a Thirunelli man is nothing but a false and invented story, to explain away his brutal annihilation while he was in custody.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/532248/k-lakshmana-ips-appellant-hash-cbi-and-another-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 55
**display title redacted:** K. Lakshmana, I.P.S. v. C.B.I. and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2011) 06 KL CK 0012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-06-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2011) 06 KL CK 0012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/532248/k-lakshmana-ips-appellant-hash-cbi-and-another-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Kerala HC affirmed life term of DySP-turned-IPS officer for ordering 1970 custodial killing of a Thirunelli man
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0009)

## Njarackal Man vs State Of Kerala (CW-2012-0015)

**Record:** CW-2012-0015 (compiler id CWC-0206); case KERALA-006
**Title:** Njarackal Man vs State Of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: K. M. Joseph; K. Harilal
**Case number / citation:** WP(C) No. 9963 of 2012 / 2013 (1) KLT 103
**Judgment:** 2012-12-20 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-04-14 (2012)
**Place:** Ernakulam, Kerala; city town: Njarackal; police station or unit: Njarackal Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, District Crime Records Bureau, Aluva Rural; Police Constable, District Crime Records Bureau, Aluva Rural; Home Guard, Njarackal Police Station (3 in record)
**Victims:** Njarackal man, age 25 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. A Njarackal man, a 25-year-old lawyer returning home by motorcycle after a second-show film on the night of 14 April 2012, was intercepted by the Njarackal police vehicle-check squad on the Vypin-Munambam highway and struck in the face, losing five teeth; the respondents admitted the injury and loss of teeth but disputed the manner of causing it. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held the admitted facts amounted to infringement of his right to life and personal liberty at the hands of respondents 5 to 7 by abuse of power. The court awarded Rs 50,000 exemplary compensation payable by the State within one month, with liberty to recover from the three officers after due enquiry, leaving criminal liability in Crime 644/2012 to the criminal court. The listed officer of Njarackal police station is a Home Guard, not a member of the police force; the court recorded his admitted lathi blow. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that an award of compensation of Rs.50,000/-, the relief which is prayed for, is just and proper to meet the ends of justice. We direct the first respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner within one month from the date of the judgment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46257919/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 40
**display title redacted:** Njarackal Man vs State Of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-12-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2013 (1) KLT 103', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46257919/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Kerala HC Division Bench awarded Rs 50,000 compensation for lathi assault that cost a young lawyer five teeth during a night vehicle check, with recovery from the SI, constable and home guard.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0015)

## Thiruvananthapuram Police Head Constable (No.4782), Station Writer vs State of Kerala (CW-2014-0004)

**Record:** CW-2014-0004 (compiler id CWC-0208); case KERALA-008
**Title:** Thiruvananthapuram Police Head Constable (No.4782), Station Writer vs State of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: A. Hariprasad
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 108 of 2001
**Judgment:** 2014-05-22 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-12-10 (1998)
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala; city town: Thiruvananthapuram; police station or unit: Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (No.4782), Station Writer, Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram (1 in record)
**Victims:** Thiruvananthapuram man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. Head Constable, Station Writer at Fort Police Station, was trapped by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau on 10 December 1998 accepting two phenolphthalein-marked Rs 100 notes to release a surety's seized bicycle, watch, pen and wallet; though the complainant turned hostile on the Rs 1,500 demand, trap witnesses, chemical tests and recovery from his shirt pocket proved voluntary acceptance. The Special Court had convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act with three-year sentences. The Kerala High Court set aside the Section 7 conviction for want of proof of demand but confirmed the Section 13 criminal-misconduct conviction, reducing the sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment with Rs 10,000 fine. Later proceedings: on 29 January 2015, the Supreme Court of India acquitted \[name withheld\] of all charges on appeal; the convictions recorded in this judgment therefore do not stand. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In this case, there is sufficient evidence to find that PW2 had paid two `100/- decoy notes to the appellant and he voluntarily accepted money as bribe. Therefore, I am of the definite view that the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is to be upheld.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10284191/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Thiruvananthapuram Police Head Constable (No.4782), Station Writer vs State of Kerala
**final outcome url:** https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122753027/
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 108 of 2001', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2014-05-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 108 of 2001', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2015-01-29', 'action_type': 'Acquitted on appeal', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'Later proceedings: on 29 January 2015, the Supreme Court of India acquitted \[name withheld\] of all charges on appeal; the convictions recorded in this judgment therefore do not stand.', 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Conviction not standing', 'source': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122753027/', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2015-01-29', 'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122753027/', 'outcome': 'acquitted_on_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10284191/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** overturned
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Kerala HC single judge confirmed s.13(1)(d) PC Act conviction of Fort station-writer head constable for voluntarily accepting Rs 200 bribe, setting aside s.7 for unproven demand and reducing sentence to 1 year RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0004)

## Vellamunda Man v. State of Kerala and Others (CW-2015-0007)

**Record:** CW-2015-0007 (compiler id CWC-0604); case SWILLEGA-025
**Title:** Vellamunda Man v. State of Kerala and Others
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: A. Muhamed Mustaque
**Case number / citation:** WP(C) No. 24902 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2015-05-22 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-05-20 (2014)
**Place:** Wayanad, Kerala; city town: Vellamunda; police station or unit: Vellamunda Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mananthavady, Wayanad; Sub-Inspector of Police, Vellamunda Police Station, Wayanad (2 in record)
**Victims:** Vellamunda man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. A Vellamunda man was taken in a police jeep on 20-05-2014 by the anti-naxal squad on mere suspicion of being a Maoist, interrogated, body-searched and had his house searched and devices seized, then released without any crime registered. The court disbelieved the police rescue-from-mob plea on the General Diary, held mere Maoist ideology is no ground for custody, and found the State bound to compensate. It directed the State to pay Rs. 1 lakh compensation plus Rs. 10,000 costs within two months, declining individual-officer liability and departmental action. The compensation direction survived the State's appeal and its SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2024.

> Therefore, Police cannot detain a person merely because he is a Maoist, unless Police forms a reasonable opinion that his activities are unlawful.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168621613/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-dismisses-kerala-govts-petition-challenging-hc-direction-to-pay-rs1-lakh-compensation-to-man-illegally-detained-as-maoist-256842); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/freedom-political-ideology-fundamental-right-kerala-high-court-maoist-compensation)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Vellamunda Man v. State of Kerala and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-05-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'WP(C) No. 24902 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168621613/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-dismisses-kerala-govts-petition-challenging-hc-direction-to-pay-rs1-lakh-compensation-to-man-illegally-detained-as-maoist-256842', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/freedom-political-ideology-fundamental-right-kerala-high-court-maoist-compensation', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: Maoist-suspicion detention held illegal; Rs.1 lakh + costs; upheld to SC.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2015-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0007)

## Pathanapuram Police Head Constable vs State of Kerala (CW-2016-0020)

**Record:** CW-2016-0020 (compiler id CWC-0815); case GAP2-31-001
**Title:** Pathanapuram Police Head Constable vs State of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: P. Ubaid J.
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 104 of 2008 / (2016) 03 KL CK 0089
**Judgment:** 2016-03-14 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-08-10 (2002)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala; city town: Pathanapuram; police station or unit: Pathanapuram Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Pathanapuram Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Pathanapuram woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Kerala High Court (P. Ubaid, J.) confirmed the corruption conviction of Head Constable of Pathanapuram Police Station, caught in a 10 August 2002 VACB trap accepting Rs.1,000 after demanding a bribe to absolve complainant \[name withheld\] from a criminal case forwarded under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Court held sanction valid, demand proved by the complainant and her son, and acceptance proved with the trap witness plus recovery of phenolphthalein-tainted currency from his table drawer, rejecting the vicious-trap defence. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 was confirmed, but the substantive sentence was reduced to the pre-2014 statutory minimum (SI six months under s.7; SI one year under s.13(2)), with the fine maintained and default sentence cut to SI three months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The conviction made by the court below against the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the P.C. Act is confirmed.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/571929/a-soman-vs-the-state-of-kerala/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5728e164e561092708a40c97)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Pathanapuram Police Head Constable vs State of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2016) 03 KL CK 0089', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2016-03-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2016) 03 KL CK 0089', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/571929/a-soman-vs-the-state-of-kerala/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5728e164e561092708a40c97', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** PC Act conviction of Head Constable confirmed; jail term cut to statutory minimum, fine maintained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0020)

## Vadakara Man vs Vadakara Man and Others (CW-2016-0010)

**Record:** CW-2016-0010 (compiler id CWC-0697); case GAP11-003
**Title:** Vadakara Man vs Vadakara Man and Others
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 1457 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 15863 of 2015
**Judgment:** 2016-08-03 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-05-01 (2012)
**Place:** Kozhikode, Kerala; city town: Vadakara; police station or unit: Vadakara Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub Inspector, Vadakara Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Vadakara man, age 70 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. In May 2012, Sub Inspector of Vadakara Police Station took 70-year-old retired teacher a Vadakara man into custody for alleged smoking in public; the victim alleged he was dragged by the collar, abused in public, lost a gold chain, and suffered a heart attack after release on bail. A disciplinary enquiry followed and the officer did not oppose the writ petition; the Single Judge directed Rs.1,00,000 be paid out of the officer's salary. The Division Bench dismissed the officer's appeal, recording its own finding that he was guilty of misconduct, acted without due diligence and violated the D.K. Basu custody guidelines, and confirmed the salary-recovery direction within two months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> we also find from the records that the appellant is guilty of misconduct

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79783045/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39403313/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Vadakara Man vs Vadakara Man and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-08-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.A. No. 1457 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 15863 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79783045/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39403313/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB upheld Rs.1 lakh damages from officer's salary for D.K. Basu violations against 70-year-old detainee.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2016-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0010)

## Raghavan vs State Of Kerala (CW-2017-0005)

**Record:** CW-2017-0005 (compiler id CWC-0212); case KERALA-012
**Title:** Raghavan vs State Of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: P. Ubaid
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 263 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2017-06-23 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-11-12 (2002)
**Place:** Alappuzha, Kerala; city town: Vallikunnam; police station or unit: Vallikunnam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Raghavan (Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Vallikunnam man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. Former Sub-Inspector Raghavan of Vallikunnam Police Station was prosecuted for demanding and accepting Rs. 1,000 and a bottle of liquor from complainant \[name withheld\] to settle an assault case. The vigilance team trapped the accused at his residence and recovered the tainted currency and liquor bottle. The Kerala High Court confirmed his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that demand and acceptance were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Taking into account the officer's age and the lapse of 15 years, the High Court reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum of one year simple imprisonment and fine. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the result, the conviction against the appellant in C.C 38/2008 made by the court below under Sections 7 and 13 ( 1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C Act is confirmed, and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58914444/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Raghavan vs State Of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 263 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2017-06-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 263 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58914444/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Kerala High Court confirmed the PC Act conviction of former Sub-Inspector Raghavan for demanding and accepting a bribe, reducing the sentence to statutory minimum.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0005)

## Ernakulam Police Police Constable vs State Of Kerala (CW-2018-0005)

**Record:** CW-2018-0005 (compiler id CWC-0210); case KERALA-010
**Title:** Ernakulam Police Police Constable vs State Of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: P. Ubaid
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 1848 & 1947 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2018-03-21 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-02-01 (2007)
**Place:** Ernakulam, Kerala; city town: Ernakulam; police station or unit: Ernakulam Central Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Ernakulam Central Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ernakulam man; Ernakulam man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. The 1st accused, a constable of Ernakulam Central Police Station, demanded Rs 25,000 from mobile-recharge trader \[name withheld\] over telephone from 23 January 2007, threatening to arraign him in the Crime 53/2007 theft case, and was trapped by VACB on 1 February 2007 accepting Rs 15,000 in tainted currency at the complainant's shop; demand was proved through the complainant's advocate-relative and acceptance by trap witnesses with phenolphthalein tests. The Special Court convicted all three accused, but the Kerala High Court held there was no demand or conspiracy proof against the ASI (A3) and the Mulavukadu constable (A2), who had merely counted the notes, and acquitted them. The court confirmed the 1st accused's conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, reducing only the Section 13 jail term to six months rigorous imprisonment with fines maintained. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The conviction against the 1st accused under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act will stand confirmed in appeal. However, the jail sentence imposed by the court below under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act will stand reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14100105/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Ernakulam Police Police Constable vs State Of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 1848 & 1947 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2018-03-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 1848 & 1947 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14100105/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Kerala HC single judge confirmed ss.7 and 13 PC Act conviction of Ernakulam Central constable (A1) for Rs 15,000 trap bribe with 6 months RI, while acquitting the ASI (A3) and Mulavukadu constable (A2) for want of demand/conspiracy proof.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0005)

## Thiruvananthapuram Man vs \[name withheld\] & Others (CW-2018-0013)

**Record:** CW-2018-0013 (compiler id CWC-0215); case SUPREM-014
**Title:** Thiruvananthapuram Man vs \[name withheld\] & Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Dipak Misra; A.M. Khanwilkar; D.Y. Chandrachud
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal Nos. 6637-6638 of 2018 / (2018) 10 SCC 804
**Judgment:** 2018-09-14 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-11-30 (1994)
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala; city town: Thiruvananthapuram; police station or unit: Vanchiyoor Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Article 21; Official Secrets Act 1923 s.3; Official Secrets Act 1923 s.4
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Inspector General, Kerala Police Special Investigation Team; Inspector, Special Branch, Thiruvananthapuram City; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Thiruvananthapuram (3 in record)
**Victims:** Thiruvananthapuram man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50 lakh (Rs 50,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. ISRO scientist a Thiruvananthapuram man was maliciously arrested and subjected to custodial harassment and defamation by the Kerala Police in the fabricated 1994 ISRO espionage case. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution was initiated without basis and was malicious, causing severe mental agony and violating the appellant's fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. The Court awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs to be paid by the State of Kerala under public law remedies. In addition, the Court constituted a committee headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice D.K. Jain to investigate the culpability of erring police officials including \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], and \[name withheld\]. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As stated earlier, the entire prosecution initiated by the State police was malicious and it has caused tremendous harassment and immeasurable anguish to the appellant. It is not a case where the accused is kept under custody and, eventually, after trial, he is found not guilty.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140150087/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 31
**display title redacted:** Thiruvananthapuram Man vs \[name withheld\] & Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-09-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 5,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2018) 10 SCC 804', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140150087/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court held ISRO espionage prosecution malicious, awarded Rs. 50 lakh compensation to scientist a Thiruvananthapuram man and constituted Justice D.K. Jain Committee.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2018-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0013)

## State of Kerala v. Mannar Police Police Constable (No. 4799) (CW-2019-0023)

**Record:** CW-2019-0023 (compiler id CWC-1238); case GAP3-70-001
**Title:** State of Kerala v. Mannar Police Police Constable (No. 4799)
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: C.T. Ravikumar; V.G. Arun
**Case number / citation:** OP(KAT) No. 110 of 2018 / AIRONLINE 2019 KER 18
**Judgment:** 2019-01-22 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-01-26 (2006)
**Place:** Alappuzha, Kerala; city town: Mannar; police station or unit: Mannar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (No. 4799), Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Kerala High Court (Division Bench) allowed the State's petition against a Kerala Administrative Tribunal order and restored the removal from service of ex-Police Constable. 4799 \[name withheld\] of Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha. The Court held the charge of unauthorised absence from duty from 26 January 2006 proved by uncontroverted General Diary evidence, with medical certificates covering only seven days and no leave applications in proper form. It held the second charge of private business while absent unproved, but sufficient that the first charge sustained the penalty. It rejected parity with co-delinquents on delay and laches and held the officer, as a member of a disciplined force, ineligible for leniency. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, as far as the first charge is concerned there is clear, cogent and unchallenged evidence to the effect that the first respondent was on unauthorised absence, at least from 3.7.2006.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/74225397/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** State of Kerala v. Mannar Police Police Constable (No. 4799)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-01-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2019 KER 18', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/74225397/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC restored removal from service for proved unauthorised absence; disciplinary penalty upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0023)

## State of Kerala vs Wayanad Man (CW-2019-0005)

**Record:** CW-2019-0005 (compiler id CWC-0205); case KERALA-005
**Title:** State of Kerala vs Wayanad Man
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: Hrishikesh Roy; A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 1330 of 2015
**Judgment:** 2019-07-08 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-05-20 (2014)
**Place:** Wayanad, Kerala; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (2 in record)
**Victims:** Wayanad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Author and researcher a Wayanad man was detained and interrogated by police in Wayanad on 20 May 2014 on suspicion of being a Maoist, a suspicion the court found was not based on any valid material, and his residence was thereafter searched by officers accompanied by Thunderbolt commandos without following CrPC procedure. The single judge awarded Rs 1,00,000 compensation with Rs 10,000 costs. A Division Bench affirmed, holding that the detention, interrogation and search were wholly unjustified, that a person cannot be persecuted merely for holding Maoist ideology, and that the compensation was neither exorbitant nor unreasonable, dismissing the State's writ appeal.

> Accordingly, merely on a suspicion that the petitioner has embraced the Maoist ideology, he cannot be persecuted by the State authorities. Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-361999.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32516640/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kerala-hc-upholds-compensation-illegally-detained-suspicion-maoist-146167); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-dismisses-kerala-govts-petition-challenging-hc-direction-to-pay-rs1-lakh-compensation-to-man-illegally-detained-as-maoist-256842)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** State of Kerala vs Wayanad Man
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-07-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.A. No. 1330 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-361999.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32516640/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kerala-hc-upholds-compensation-illegally-detained-suspicion-maoist-146167', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-dismisses-kerala-govts-petition-challenging-hc-direction-to-pay-rs1-lakh-compensation-to-man-illegally-detained-as-maoist-256842', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Kerala HC Division Bench upheld Rs 1 lakh compensation for unjustified Maoist-suspicion detention, interrogation and house search, dismissing the State's writ appeal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0005)

## Jayakumar vs State Of Kerala (CW-2020-0002)

**Record:** CW-2020-0002 (compiler id CWC-0201); case KERALA-001
**Title:** Jayakumar vs State Of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: A. Hariprasad; N. Anil Kumar
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 1267 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2020-01-07 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-04-06 (2005)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala; city town: Kollam; police station or unit: East Police Station, Kollam; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34; IPC 348
**Officers (gated display forms):** Jayakumar (Police Constable); M. Venugopal (Police Constable) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Kollam man, age 37 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 5 yrs; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. A Kollam man, picked up from Sanker's Hospital, Kollam, on 6 April 2005 on suspicion of mobile-phone theft, was informally detained without recording arrest and tortured by two crime-squad constables of Kollam East Police Station at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel police museum lock-up to extract a confession; he died the same evening and the death was homicidal. The trial court convicted both constables of custodial murder under Sections 302 and 348 read with Section 34 IPC. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held the deceased was in the exclusive custody of the two accused and, finding no intent to kill, altered the murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder with five years rigorous imprisonment each, confirmed the wrongful-confinement conviction and sentences to run concurrently, and left the Rs 2,00,000 compensation to the victim's mother undisturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We are satisfied with the evidence that the deceased was tortured by A1 and A2 with an intention to extract confession in connection with a theft case.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121952943/); [humanrights.asia](http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/UP-87-2005/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 74
**display title redacted:** Jayakumar vs State Of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 1267 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2020-01-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 1267 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121952943/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/UP-87-2005/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Kerala HC Division Bench upheld custodial-death conviction of two Kollam East constables, altering s.302 to s.304 Part II with 5 years RI and confirming s.348 conviction and Rs 2 lakh compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2020-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0002)

## Ezhukone Man vs Ezhukone Man (CW-2021-0006)

**Record:** CW-2021-0006 (compiler id CWC-0207); case KERALA-007
**Title:** Ezhukone Man vs Ezhukone Man
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: Mary Joseph
**Case number / citation:** Crl.R.P. Nos. 519 & 520 of 2013
**Judgment:** 2021-06-23 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-02-08 (1996)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala; city town: Ezhukone; police station or unit: Ezhukone Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 323; IPC 324; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** D. Rajagopal (Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)); Police Constable (No.4690), Ezhukone Police Station; Baby (Police Constable (No.3817)); Sharafudeen (Police Constable) (4 in record)
**Victims:** Ezhukone man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

Complainant \[name withheld\] was picked up and held overnight in the Ezhukone police lock-up on 8-9 February 1996, where he was beaten and burnt on the tongue with a cigarette so that he could not complain to the Magistrate; the trial court and appellate court concurrently convicted the SI and three constables under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The Kerala High Court rejected the Section 197 CrPC sanction defence, holding custodial torture is not an act done in the discharge of official duty. The court dismissed both criminal revision petitions, confirming one year simple imprisonment with Rs 2,500 fine each under Section 324 and Rs 1,000 fine each under Section 323, with Rs 10,000 of the fine payable to the complainant as Section 357(1) CrPC compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the light of the foregoing discussions, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the trial court and the appellate court are not in error and are perfectly justified in finding accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 guilty for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC, convicting them and imposing punishments on them for those by the impugned judgment.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125749818/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kerala-high-court-section-197-crpc-sanction-not-required-to-prosecute-policemen-for-their-illegal-acts-183571)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 47
**display title redacted:** Ezhukone Man vs Ezhukone Man
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.R.P. Nos. 519 & 520 of 2013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2021-06-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.R.P. Nos. 519 & 520 of 2013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125749818/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kerala-high-court-section-197-crpc-sanction-not-required-to-prosecute-policemen-for-their-illegal-acts-183571', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Kerala HC single judge dismissed revisions of an SI and three Ezhukone constables, upholding 1-year SI convictions under ss.323/324/34 IPC for 1996 custodial torture.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2021-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0006)

## D. (minor) vs State of Kerala and Ors. (CW-2021-0023)

**Record:** CW-2021-0023 (compiler id CWC-0816); case GAP2-32-001
**Title:** D. (minor) vs State of Kerala and Ors.
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: Devan Ramachandran J.
**Case number / citation:** WP(C) No. 25850 of 2021
**Judgment:** 2021-12-22 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2021-08-27 (2021)
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala; city town: Attingal; police station or unit: Pink Police, Attingal Police Station (Thiruvananthapuram Rural); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Pink Police, Attingal Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Attingal girl, age 8 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Kerala High Court (Devan Ramachandran, J.) held that Pink Police Constable illegal detention and public humiliation of 8-year-old a 8-year-old girl at Attingal on 27 August 2021, on the false allegation that the child possessed the officer own missing phone, violated the child fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21. The Court rejected the State claim to protection under Section 113 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, holding the officer acted in her own cause as judge, jury and executioner rather than in discharge of duty. It directed the State to pay Rs.1,50,000 compensation plus Rs.25,000 costs within one month under public-law strict liability, and directed the supervisory authority to consider disciplinary action while keeping the officer off public-facing duties with interpersonal-skills training meanwhile. The officer apology on record was declined by the family; the Court declined to order her removal, noting her financial hardship. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court is in complete affirmation with the afore argument of Smt.A.K.Preetha and as I have already said above, I am firm in my mind that the petitioner is entitled to sufficient compensation for the purpose of remedying the violation of her fundamental right to live with dignity under our great Constitution, at the hands of the 4th respondent and which has been unfortunately tried to be trivialized and even justified by the official respondents through their pleadings in this case, even when the 4th respondent has no such case, while expressly admitting her 'indiscretion'.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/wpc258502021h-407081.pdf); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/kerala-high-court-orders-state-govt-pay-15-lakh-compensation-girl-falsely-accused-theft-female-police-officer); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/pink-police-harassment-kerala-hc-grants-compensation-to-the-girl-calls-for-disciplinary-action-against-responsible-officer-188221)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 65
**display title redacted:** D. (minor) vs State of Kerala and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-12-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'WP(C) No. 25850 of 2021', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/wpc258502021h-407081.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/kerala-high-court-orders-state-govt-pay-15-lakh-compensation-girl-falsely-accused-theft-female-police-officer', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/pink-police-harassment-kerala-hc-grants-compensation-to-the-girl-calls-for-disciplinary-action-against-responsible-officer-188221', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Art 21 violation found; Rs.1,50,000 compensation plus Rs.25,000 costs; disciplinary consideration ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 8, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a 8-year-old girl'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2021-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0023)

## Alathur Man v. V. R. Raneesh (CW-2024-0016)

**Record:** CW-2024-0016 (compiler id CWC-0650); case SWOTHERM-014
**Title:** Alathur Man v. V. R. Raneesh
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: Devan Ramachandran
**Case number / citation:** Not stated
**Judgment:** 2024-09-04 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated (2024)
**Place:** Palakkad, Kerala; city town: Alathur; police station or unit: Alathur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** Contempt of Courts Act 1971
**Officers (gated display forms):** V. R. Raneesh (Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Alathur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 0.167 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. Advocate an Alathur man complained that Sub-Inspector V. R. Raneesh of Alathur Police Station insulted him with abusive language and expletives and threatened physical abuse when he visited the station to comply with a Magistrate's order, in violation of the Court's earlier directions against derogatory police language. The officer tendered an apology and submitted to the contempt jurisdiction. Justice Devan Ramachandran convicted him of criminal contempt, imposed two months' simple imprisonment suspended for one year on condition of good conduct, and said the sentence should be an example to all officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the afore circumstances, I order this Contempt of Court Case, sentencing the first respondent to two months of simple imprisonment under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act; however, suspending the same for a period of one year.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/20290000175202416-563345.pdf); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/kerala-high-court-orders-two-months-jail-alathur-si-verbally-abused-lawyer); [lawchakra.in](https://lawchakra.in/high-court/let-this-be-an-example-kerala-hc-jailed-police/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 36
**display title redacted:** Alathur Man v. V. R. Raneesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para', 'sections', 'primary_source_url'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-09-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Kerala High Court judgment 2024-09-04', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/20290000175202416-563345.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/kerala-high-court-orders-two-months-jail-alathur-si-verbally-abused-lawyer', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawchakra.in/high-court/let-this-be-an-example-kerala-hc-jailed-police/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC contempt conviction verified via 3+ independent reports; 2 months SI suspended for one year.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2024-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0016)

## S. Navas vs State Of Kerala (CW-2025-0020)

**Record:** CW-2025-0020 (compiler id CWC-0209); case KERALA-009
**Title:** S. Navas vs State Of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: A. Badharudeen
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 488 of 2020 / 2025:KER:72309
**Judgment:** 2025-09-26 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-11-23 (2012)
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala; city town: Thumba; police station or unit: Thumba Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** S. Navas (Senior Civil Police Officer (T 9170)) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Thumba man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. Senior CPO S. Navas of Thumba Police Station demanded Rs 1,000 from passport applicant a Thumba man on 15 November 2012, claiming a pending accident case against him, and was trapped by vigilance on 23 November 2012 accepting the marked Rs 1,000 as motive for a clear passport verification report; demand and acceptance were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Special Court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act with three-year sentences. The Kerala High Court confirmed both convictions but modified the sentences to six months simple imprisonment with Rs 10,000 fine under Section 7 and one year simple imprisonment with Rs 15,000 fine under Section 13, vacating the suspension of sentence and directing surrender. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, it could be gathered that in the instant case, the demand and acceptance of ₹1,000/- by the accused on 23.11.2012 are proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the Special Court rightly entered into conviction of the accused for the said offences and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused are found unsustainable. Therefore, the conviction does not require any interference.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61881628/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** S. Navas vs State Of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2025:KER:72309', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-09-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2025:KER:72309', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61881628/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Kerala HC single judge confirmed ss.7 and 13 PC Act conviction of Thumba Senior CPO for Rs 1,000 passport-verification bribe, modifying sentence to 6 months/1 year SI with fines and vacating bail.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0020)

## Chakkarakkal Man and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (CW-2025-0024)

**Record:** CW-2025-0024 (compiler id CWC-0204); case KERALA-004; aliases: CWC-0658; CWC-1440
**Title:** Chakkarakkal Man and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: P.M. Manoj
**Case number / citation:** WP(C) No. 9494 of 2019 / 2025:KER:88675
**Judgment:** 2025-10-14 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2018-07-11 (2018)
**Place:** Kannur, Kerala; city town: Chakkarakkal; police station or unit: Chakkarakkal Police Station, Kannur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Chakkarakkal Police Station, Kannur; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Chakkarakkal Police Station, Kannur; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Chakkarakkal Police Station, Kannur (3 in record)
**Victims:** Chakkarakkal man; Chakkarakkal woman; Chakkarakkal man; Chakkarakkal man; Chakkarakkal woman (5 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 14 lakh (Rs 14,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Kerala High Court held that an NRI rent-a-car worker home on 15 days' leave for his daughter's wedding was falsely implicated in Chakkarakkal Crime No. 388/2018, a chain-snatching case, arrested on 11 July 2018 and kept 54 days in custody despite CCTV identity mismatch and his impossibility plea. A DySP enquiry exonerated him and implicated the real accused \[name withheld\], noting lapses by the SHO and two ASIs and recommending transfer plus a Punishment Roll entry against SI. The court held the wrongful arrest and detention violated Article 21 and awarded Rs 10 lakh to the first petitioner and Rs 1 lakh each to his wife, two sons and daughter as public-law compensation under Article 226. The State was left at liberty to recover the amount from the erring officers, and the petitioners free to pursue civil remedies. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by granting compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1 lakh each to the petitioners 2 to 5, the wife and children of the 1st petitioner, who have suffered mental agony, trauma, defamation and harassment at the hands of respondents 2 to 4.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com](https://livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/thajudheen-645889.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-compensation-illegal-imprisonment-false-case-518485); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/thajudheen-645889.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 53
**display title redacted:** Chakkarakkal Man and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-10-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,400,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2025:KER:88675', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/thajudheen-645889.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-compensation-illegal-imprisonment-false-case-518485', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/thajudheen-645889.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Kerala HC held NRI falsely implicated, 54 days custody violated Art.21; Rs 14 lakh compensation, recoverable from officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0024)

## Karikkottakkari Man v. Dy. S.P., VACB Unit-1 Kannur & State of Kerala (CW-2026-0043)

**Record:** CW-2026-0043 (compiler id CWC-1239); case GAP3-72-001
**Title:** Karikkottakkari Man v. Dy. S.P., VACB Unit-1 Kannur & State of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: A. Badharudeen
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 1670 of 2013 / 2026:KER:5210
**Judgment:** 2026-01-21 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-05-02 (2003)
**Place:** Kannur, Kerala; city town: Karikkottakkari; police station or unit: Karikkottakkari Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Karikkottakkari Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Karikkottakkari man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Kerala High Court (single bench) confirmed the conviction of Sub-Inspector of Karikkottakkari Police Station by the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Kozhikode (CC No. 19 of 2005) for demanding and accepting Rs 3,000 in marked notes from an autorickshaw driver to avoid foisting a case on him. The Court held demand and acceptance proved through the complainant corroborated by witnesses and the trap recovery, rejecting the defence of a false case. Accepting the plea for leniency, it reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum of six months' RI with Rs 10,000 fine under s.7 and one year's RI with Rs 10,000 fine under s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2), concurrent. It cancelled the appellant's bail and directed him to surrender forthwith. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the above, the conviction entered by the Special Court, after properly appreciating the evidence, does not call for any interference.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130490866/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 30
**display title redacted:** Karikkottakkari Man v. Dy. S.P., VACB Unit-1 Kannur & State of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2026:KER:5210', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-01-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2026:KER:5210', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130490866/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC confirmed SI's PC Act bribery conviction; sentence reduced to statutory minimum.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0043](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0043)

## Chavara Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (Grade) vs State of Kerala (CW-2026-0011)

**Record:** CW-2026-0011 (compiler id CWC-0203); case KERALA-003; aliases: CWC-1425
**Title:** Chavara Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (Grade) vs State of Kerala
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: A. Badharudeen
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A No. 1229 of 2014 / 2026:KER:20489
**Judgment:** 2026-03-06 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-04-21 (2009)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala; city town: Chavara; police station or unit: Chavara Police Station, Kollam; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (Grade), Chavara Police Station, Kollam (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chavara man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. Entrusted with complainant \[name withheld\]'s property-dispute complaint, ASI (Grade) \[name withheld\] of Chavara Police Station demanded Rs 2,000 on 21 April 2009 and accepted it on 24 April 2009 in a vigilance trap, being caught red-handed. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act 1988. The Kerala High Court rejected defences on sanction validity, witness contradictions and the decoy evidence, holding the ingredients proved beyond reasonable doubt with PW1 corroborated by the decoy witness and vigilance officials. The appeal was allowed in part: the conviction was confirmed but the sentence was reduced to the statutory minimum of six months RI with Rs 5,000 fine and one year RI with Rs 10,000 fine, concurrent.

> On an overall evaluation of the evidence discussed, the ingredients to constitute offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 have been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts and thereby the learned Special Judge found that the accused committed the said offences.

**Sources (3):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2033000122920142watermark-1773231.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/kerala-high-court/sudarsanan-v-state-of-kerala-crla-no-1229-of-2014-bribery-asi-demand-acceptance-1609517); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51148852/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** Chavara Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (Grade) vs State of Kerala
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Kerala High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2026:KER:20489', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-03-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2026:KER:20489', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2033000122920142watermark-1773231.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/kerala-high-court/sudarsanan-v-state-of-kerala-crla-no-1229-of-2014-bribery-asi-demand-acceptance-1609517', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51148852/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Conviction confirmed; sentence cut to statutory minimum (6 months/1 year).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0011)

## Kozhikode Man and Others vs Kozhikode Man and Others (CW-2026-0039)

**Record:** CW-2026-0039 (compiler id CWC-0698); case GAP11-005
**Title:** Kozhikode Man and Others vs Kozhikode Man and Others
**Court:** Kerala High Court; judges: Easwaran S.
**Case number / citation:** R.S.A. No. 853 of 2020 / 2026:KER:33751
**Judgment:** 2026-05-18 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2010-03-02 (2010)
**Place:** Kozhikode, Kerala; city town: Kozhikode; police station or unit: Chevayur Police Station, Kozhikode; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Circle Inspector, Chevayur Police Station / Elathur Police Station, Kozhikode; Additional Sub Inspector, Crime Detachment Wing, Calicut City; Sub Inspector, SBCID, Kollam (3 in record)
**Victims:** Kozhikode man; Kozhikode man; Kozhikode woman (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Kerala High Court records the following account. On 2 March 2010, the three appellant officers with a police force and a mobile crane came to the plaintiffs' residence and seized a car, following a traffic-fine confrontation and a Section 176 IPC case that the prosecution later withdrew. The court records that when a plaintiff demanded a receipt for the car key, the first defendant assaulted him while the other two held him, and that the elderly mother fainted. A departmental enquiry had found the officers guilty. The High Court dismissed the officers' second appeal, holding the assault was no part of official duty so the Kerala Police Act limitation bar did not apply, the seizure was unjustified, and sustained the Rs.5,00,000 decree with interest against the officers and the State jointly and severally.

> The alleged assault on the plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the present case cannot be considered as one done in pursuance to the official duty at any rate.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79204748/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Kozhikode Man and Others vs Kozhikode Man and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-05-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Kerala High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Kerala High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026:KER:33751', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79204748/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Second-appeal dismissal verified; Rs 5L assault/seizure decree against 3 officers + State sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0039)

## Madhya Bharat Police Sub-Inspector v. State of Madhya Bharat (CW-1958-0002)

**Record:** CW-1958-0002 (compiler id CWC-1242); case GAP3-73-003
**Title:** Madhya Bharat Police Sub-Inspector v. State of Madhya Bharat
**Court:** Madhya Bharat High Court; judges: H.R. Krishnan; A.H. Khan
**Case number / citation:** AIR 1959 MP 43; (1959) 2 LLJ 187; 1959 MPLJ 423
**Judgment:** 1958-08-18 (1958, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Guna, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Guna; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Guna district, Madhya Bharat Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Madhya Bharat High Court (now Madhya Pradesh High Court) dismissed the Article 226 petition of Sub-Inspector of Guna district, sustaining his dismissal from service of 2 June 1953. The SP Guna had enquired into 18 counts of corruption and bribery and recommended dismissal, which the DIG Northern Range imposed after accepting findings on 7 charges; the IG had dismissed the departmental appeal. The Court held the DIG competent after the 1948 merger, found no violation of Article 311(1) and no fatal inquiry defect, and dismissed the application with costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The result is that the application is without force. The rulings reported in AIR 1956 Madh-B. 259 and AIR 1957 MP 128, the principles of which, I accept, have no application to the present case.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23931/); [legalindia.com](https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/raghunath-singh-vs-state-of-madhya-bharat-on-18-august-1958)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Madhya Bharat Police Sub-Inspector v. State of Madhya Bharat
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1958-08-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Bharat High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Bharat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1959 MP 43; (1959) 2 LLJ 187; 1959 MPLJ 423', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23931/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/raghunath-singh-vs-state-of-madhya-bharat-on-18-august-1958', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writ; corruption-based dismissal of SI sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1958-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1958-0002)

## Madhya Pradesh Police Constable and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-1965-0003)

**Record:** CW-1965-0003 (compiler id CWC-1240); case GAP3-73-001
**Title:** Madhya Pradesh Police Constable and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: J.R. Mudholkar; A.K. Sarkar; R.S. Bachawat
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1963 / AIR 1966 SC 945; (1966) 2 SCR 822
**Judgment:** 1965-11-30 (1965, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1958-08-01 (1958)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Jabalpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 170; IPC 342; IPC 392
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jabalpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court's 8 February 1963 reversal of acquittal of police constable \[name withheld\], who while on leave robbed complainant \[name withheld\] of a gold mohar at Jabalpur in August 1958 wearing a head-constable's uniform and posing as an investigating officer. The convictions under ss.170, 342 and 392 IPC were left intact. The Court interfered only with quantum, holding an appellate court cannot impose more than the trial First Class Magistrate could have, and capped the s.392 term at two years' RI. The concurrent terms were one year's RI (s.170), six months' RI (s.342) and two years' RI (s.392). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The High Court to which an appeal was preferred by the State Government set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellant of each of these offences.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1713903/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=005691113000&Title=JAGAT-BAHADUR-Vs.-STATE-OF-MADHYA-PRADESH)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Madhya Pradesh Police Constable and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1966 SC 945; (1966) 2 SCR 822', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1965-11-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1966 SC 945; (1966) 2 SCR 822', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1713903/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=005691113000&Title=JAGAT-BAHADUR-Vs.-STATE-OF-MADHYA-PRADESH', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC upheld HC's reversal-of-acquittal convictions of constable for robbery in uniform.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1965-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1965-0003)

## Guna Police Sub-Inspector v. State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-1976-0004)

**Record:** CW-1976-0004 (compiler id CWC-0817); case GAP2-33-002
**Title:** Guna Police Sub-Inspector v. State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: Shiv Dayal Shrivastava, C.J.; C. M. Lodha; C. Kondaiah
**Case number / citation:** Second Appeal No. 133 of 1973 / AIR 1977 MP 13; 1976 MPLJ 848
**Judgment:** 1976-09-15 (1976, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Guna, Madhya Pradesh; police station or unit: Guna district police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 331; IPC 323; Constitution Art. 311
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Guna district police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

A Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior) on 15 September 1976 dismissed the second appeal of Sub-Inspector, upholding his dismissal from the police force. The court recorded that the SI, tried under Sections 330/331 IPC and convicted only under Section 323 by the trial court on 26 February 1954, was convicted by the High Court under Section 330 IPC on 6 November 1957 and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment plus a Rs. 200 fine. The Inspector-General of Police dismissed him with effect from the conviction date under Rule 246 of the Police Regulations. The Full Bench held that a rigorous-imprisonment sentence imposed by the High Court falls squarely under Rule 246 and that a conviction-consequential dismissal under the second proviso to Article 311(2) needs no departmental inquiry. The judgment gives no details of the underlying custodial incident beyond the charge of hurt to extort a confession. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The High Court convicted the appellant u/s 330, I.P.C. and sentenced him to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment in addition to fine of Rs. 200.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/928137/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/588567/dinkarrao-gangaram-najgarh-appellant-hash-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** Guna Police Sub-Inspector v. State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1976-09-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1977 MP 13; 1976 MPLJ 848', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/928137/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/588567/dinkarrao-gangaram-najgarh-appellant-hash-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Full Bench judgment verified via mirror; s.330 IPC conviction and dismissal upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1976-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1976-0004)

## Narmadapuram Man and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (CW-1990-0003)

**Record:** CW-1990-0003 (compiler id CWC-0513); case SWDISPRO-006
**Title:** Narmadapuram Man and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. R. Pandian; K. Jayachandra Reddy
**Case number / citation:** (1990) 3 SCC 119; 1990 SCR (2) 871
**Judgment:** 1990-05-02 (1990, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-04-22 (1989)
**Place:** Narmadapuram, Madhya Pradesh (district at time: Hoshangabad); police station or unit: Madhya Pradesh Police (court escort party); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Narmadapuram man; Narmadapuram man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The Supreme Court held the police escort party unjustly and unreasonably handcuffed petitioners 1 and 2, social workers of the Kisan Adivasi Sangathan convicted to one month simple imprisonment for a peaceful dharna, during transit to court on 22 April 1989, rejecting the escort justification under MP Police Regulation 465. The Court directed the Madhya Pradesh Government to take appropriate action against the erring escort party and to enquire into the petitioners detention beyond their sentence. Allegations of torture and abuse were held not proved, and no compensation was awarded by the Court.

> It is most painful to note that the petitioners 1 and 2 who staged a 'dharna' for public cause and voluntarily submitted themselves for arrest and who had no tendency to escape had been subjected to humiliation by being handcuffed which act of the escort party is against all norms of decency and which is in utter violation of the principle underlying Article 21 of the Constitution of India. So we strongly condemn this kind of conduct of the escort party arbitrarily and unreasonably humiliating the citizens of the country with obvious motive of pleasing 'some-one'.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1745823/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Protest policing', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Narmadapuram Man and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1990-05-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered compensation in an amount stated in the judgment.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1990) 3 SCC 119; 1990 SCR (2) 871', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1745823/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Unjust handcuffing held proved; action against escort party plus over-detention enquiry directed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-1990-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1990-0003)

## Mhow Man v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (CW-1993-0010)

**Record:** CW-1993-0010 (compiler id CWC-0818); case GAP2-33-003
**Title:** Mhow Man v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: V. D. Gyani
**Case number / citation:** 1994 MPLJ 65; 1995 ACJ 383
**Judgment:** 1993-08-21 (1993, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-08-19 (1992)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Mhow; police station or unit: Mhow Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 387; IPC 457; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named
**Victims:** Mhow man, age 28 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

On 21 August 1993 the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the Article 226 petition of Abdul Ghaffar, whose son \[name withheld\] was picked up by Mhow police on the night of 15 August 1992, shown arrested only on 18 August 1992 in a Section 457 IPC case, and found dead with multiple injuries in the Civil Hospital mortuary on 19 August 1992. The court ordered registration of offences under Sections 302 and 387 IPC with investigation in accordance with law, and deprecated the five autopsy doctors for withholding the cause of death before the court summoned the viscera report. Relying on the Rudul Shah line of cases, the court awarded Rs. 1,00,000 as exemplary compensation payable by the State, recoverable from those found responsible, plus Rs. 2,500 counsel's fee. Individual officers were not named; identification was left to the ordered investigation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is deeply regrettable that a man be put to death unjustly in order to preserve the order, dignity and tranquillity of the state - a state preservable only at such a cost would not be worth preserving.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/710578/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Mhow Man v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1993-08-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1994 MPLJ 65; 1995 ACJ 383', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/710578/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Full judgment text read; custodial death found, FIR and Rs.1 lakh compensation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1993-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1993-0010)

## State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors. (CW-1995-0001)

**Record:** CW-1995-0001 (compiler id CWC-0216); case SUPREM-004
**Title:** State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: A.S. Anand; M.K. Mukherjee
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 217 of 1993 / (1995) 4 SCC 262
**Judgment:** 1995-05-09 (1995, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1981-10-13 (1981)
**Place:** Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh (district at time: Mandsaur); city town: Rampura; police station or unit: Rampura Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34; IPC 201; IPC 342
**Officers (gated display forms):** Shyamsunder Trivedi (Sub-Inspector); Ram Naresh Shukla (Head Constable); Rajaram Mishra (Head Constable); Ganniuddin (Constable) (4 in record)
**Victims:** Rampura man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs; Rs 1.1 lakh (Rs 1,10,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. A Rampura man was brought to Rampura Police Station for interrogation on October 13, 1981, where he was subjected to brutal custodial torture and died of multiple traumatic injuries. The police attempted to screen the offence by creating false roznamcha entries and attempting to cremate the corpse as an unclaimed body until local bar members and villagers intervened. Setting aside the trial court acquittals and partial High Court acquittal, the Supreme Court convicted Sub-Inspector Shyamsunder Trivedi and three other police officers under Sections 304 Part II read with 34, 201, and 342 of the IPC. The Court held that when custodial death occurs, a presumption arises against the police custodians, sentencing Trivedi to two years RI plus Rs. 50,000 fine and the other three officers to one year RI plus Rs. 20,000 fine each, with all fines directed to be paid as compensation to the victim's heirs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Generally speaking, it would be police officials alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/838507/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1995-05-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1995) 4 SCC 262', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/838507/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court reversed acquittals and convicted four police personnel under IPC 304 Part II/34, 201, 342 for custodial death of a Rampura man, ordering fines paid to victim's heirs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-1995-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1995-0001)

## Gwalior Police Constable vs State of M.P. (CW-2000-0014)

**Record:** CW-2000-0014 (compiler id CWC-1245); case GAP3-74-003
**Title:** Gwalior Police Constable vs State of M.P.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: A.K. Mishra
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 573 of 1989 / (2001) 1 MPHT 263; (2000) 06 MP CK 0025
**Judgment:** 2000-06-23 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1982-07-23 (1982)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Gwalior; police station or unit: 8th Battalion, Special Armed Force (SAF), Gwalior; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 307
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, 8th Battalion, SAF, Gwalior (1 in record)
**Victims:** Gwalior man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 4 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

On the night of 23 July 1982, SAF Constable left his Quarter Guard duty post in Gwalior with his service.303 rifle and shot his neighbour, causing a firearm injury the Court noted was dangerous to life. The trial court convicted him under Section 307 IPC and imposed four years' rigorous imprisonment. The High Court held that the eyewitness account of the injured man's wife, corroborated by the appellant's absence from duty, the shortage of service cartridges and a recovered.303 cartridge, proved the charge despite the injured witness turning hostile and the missing ballistic report. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence, observing that the investigating agency had sided with the accused policeman throughout.

> In the result the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is affirmed.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/589873/raj-dhar-vs-state-of-mp/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Gwalior Police Constable vs State of M.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2001) 1 MPHT 263; (2000) 06 MP CK 0025', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2000-06-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2001) 1 MPHT 263; (2000) 06 MP CK 0025', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/589873/raj-dhar-vs-state-of-mp/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; SAF constable's s.307 conviction and 4-year sentence affirmed (off-duty shooting, qualifies literally).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2000-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0014)

## Sheopur Kalan Man v. Govt. of M.P. and Others (CW-2001-0011)

**Record:** CW-2001-0011 (compiler id CWC-0726); case SWILLEGA-083
**Title:** Sheopur Kalan Man v. Govt. of M.P. and Others
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: S.S. Jha
**Case number / citation:** 2001(3)MPHT105
**Judgment:** 2001-03-31 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-01-28 (1997)
**Place:** Sheopur, Madhya Pradesh (district at time: Morena); city town: Sheopur Kalan; police station or unit: Police Station Sheopur Kalan; SDM Sheopur Kalan; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sheopur Kalan; Town Inspector, Sheopur Kalan (3 in record)
**Victims:** Sheopur Kalan man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench, Justice S.S. Jha) awarded Rs 25,000 jointly and severally against the State and SDM \[name withheld\] for a Sheopur Kalan man's illegal detention from 28 to 30 January 1997. Arrested on 27 January 1997 in a land-dispute case and bailed by the ACJM on 28 January, the petitioner was instead shown freshly arrested under s.151 CrPC, his bail rejected by the SDM on a substituted order-sheet, and kept in jail till 30 January. The Court held the Town Inspector could not invoke s.151 once the accused was already arrested for substantive offences, found the SDM's malafides and record manipulation apparent, ordered an enquiry against the SDM with recovery, costs on the SDM, and preventive directions via the Chief Secretary. Later proceedings: on 10 November 2010, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Division Bench (Gwalior) set aside the conviction/order concerning \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]; the findings against the remaining officers stand as recorded in this judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Respondent No. 4 Town Inspector has also acted beyond his jurisdiction after registering the case for substantive offence and for similar offence registering a case under Section 151, Cr.P.C. The act of respondent No. 2 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in changing the order-sheets demonstrates his vicious mind and it appears that the respondent No, 2 is capable of manipulating the records of the Court.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/811135/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Sheopur Kalan Man v. Govt. of M.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-03-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2001(3)MPHT105', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court, Division Bench (Gwalior)', 'date': '2010-11-10', 'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/578429/suresh-kumar-sharma-appellant-hash-durgalal-vijay-and-others-respondent/', 'outcome': 'conviction_set_aside'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/811135/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** MP HC order verified on Indian Kanoon; Rs 25,000 joint award, SDM malafide + s.151 illegality match.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2001-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0011)

## Ujjain Man v. State of M.P. and Others (CW-2002-0025)

**Record:** CW-2002-0025 (compiler id CWC-1318); case GAP3-74-002
**Title:** Ujjain Man v. State of M.P. and Others
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: Dipak Misra
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 2693 of 2000 (J) / (2002) 07 MP CK 0067
**Judgment:** 2002-07-26 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-03-02 (2000)
**Place:** Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Ujjain; police station or unit: Police Station Madhav Nagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Officer-in-charge), Police Station Madhav Nagar, Ujjain; Constable, Police Station Madhav Nagar, Ujjain; Constable (Sentry), Police Station Madhav Nagar, Ujjain; City Superintendent of Police, Ujjain; Superintendent of Police, Ujjain (5 in record)
**Victims:** Ujjain man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Dipak Misra J.) allowed in part a writ by 3.5-year-old Richa Jethani over the death of her father \[name withheld\], detained without formal arrest at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Ujjain from 29 February 2000 and found burnt at the station on the midnight of 2 March 2000. Commissioner and magisterial enquiries found criminal negligence: a privately purchased kerosene container and matchbox left accessible in the station enabled the death, and detention without arrest was illegal. The Court held the State vicariously liable under Article 21, awarded Rs 1 lakh compensation (Rs 80,000 in fixed deposit till the minor's majority), and left the State free to recover from the erring officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On proper appreciation of the aforesaid report it rings as a bell that there was total unconcern, negligence and dereliction on the part of the concerned police officials as a result of which a Ujjain man could commit suicide.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/588775/ku-richa-jethani-appellant-hash-state-of-mp-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Ujjain Man v. State of M.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-07-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2002) 07 MP CK 0067', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/588775/ku-richa-jethani-appellant-hash-state-of-mp-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC awarded Rs 1 lakh for custodial death by negligence; recovery from erring officials permitted.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0025)

## State of Madhya Pradesh v. Indar Police Station House Officer and others (CW-2002-0027)

**Record:** CW-2002-0027 (compiler id CWC-1243); case GAP3-74-001
**Title:** State of Madhya Pradesh v. Indar Police Station House Officer and others
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1990
**Judgment:** 2002-08-01 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-10-08 (1983)
**Place:** Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Indar; police station or unit: Police Station Indar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 330
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Police Station Indar, Shivpuri; Head Constable, Police Station Indar, Shivpuri; Head Constable, Police Station Indar, Shivpuri; Constable, Police Station Indar, Shivpuri; Constable, Police Station Indar, Shivpuri (5 in record)
**Victims:** Indar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) on 1 August 2002 allowed the State's appeal against acquittal and convicted five Police Station Indar personnel for custodial torture causing the death of theft suspect \[name withheld\]. An Indar man was illegally detained without record from 8 October 1983, given electric shocks on his scrotum to extort a confession, released on 11 October 1983 and died on 13 October 1983. Each officer received five years' RI with Rs 5,000 fine under s.304 Part II IPC and three years' RI under s.330 IPC. The Supreme Court (9 March 2011, Crl.A. Nos. 581-584 of 2003) affirmed, holding the death a direct consequence of inexcusable and inhuman torture by the police; HC full text verified via the SC record. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The evidence on the record clearly shows that death of an Indar man was a direct consequence of the inexcusable and inhuman torture by the police.

**Sources (2):** [legalauthority.in](https://www.legalauthority.in/amp/judgement/haricharan-vs-state-of-m-p-8490); [advocatekhoj.com](http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=696)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 32
**display title redacted:** State of Madhya Pradesh v. Indar Police Station House Officer and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-08-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1990', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.legalauthority.in/amp/judgement/haricharan-vs-state-of-m-p-8490', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=696', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC reversed acquittal, convicted 5 officers for custodial death; affirmed by SC 2011 (HC text via SC record).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2002-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0027)

## Kankda Police Head Constable vs State of M.P. and Others (CW-2002-0032)

**Record:** CW-2002-0032 (compiler id CWC-1246); case GAP3-74-004
**Title:** Kankda Police Head Constable vs State of M.P. and Others
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Indore; judges: S.L. Kochar; S.B. Sakrikar
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 207 of 1999 / (2003) ILR (MP) 391; (2003) 1 MPHT 56; (2003) 1 MPLJ 399; (2002) 09 MP CK 0021
**Judgment:** 2002-09-30 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-03-11 (1993)
**Place:** Dhar, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Kankda; police station or unit: District police, Dhar; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** MP Police Regulations Reg. 214(vi); MP Police Regulations Reg. 221; MP Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1966 R. 18
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, District Dhar; Constable, District Dhar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Kankda man; Kankda man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Head Constable and Constable of Dhar district faced departmental charges that \[name withheld\] demanded Rs 5,000 from a village Kankda informant over a stray buffalo, and when refused went to the village on 11 March 1993 and severely beat the informant and his brother \[name withheld\], then fabricated Section 102 CrPC proceedings to cover up. The Superintendent of Police, Dhar removed \[name withheld\] from service on 30 April 1994, and his appeal, representation and Tribunal petition all failed. The High Court held the SP had jurisdiction under Regulation 221, the SP's order amounted to a valid common-proceedings order satisfying Rule 18, and declined any indulgence on quantum since the corruption charges stood proved against a police Head Constable. The Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the removal from service intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court also does not feel to show any indulgence on the question of quantum of punishment looking to the charges of corruption found proved in the enquiry against the petitioner.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/579308/rameshchandra-vs-state-of-mp-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Kankda Police Head Constable vs State of M.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-09-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2003) ILR (MP) 391; (2003) 1 MPHT 56; (2003) 1 MPLJ 399; (2002) 09 MP CK 0021', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/579308/rameshchandra-vs-state-of-mp-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; removal of Head Constable upheld, corruption charges held proved.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0032)

## State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Banda Woman & Anr. (CW-2003-0023)

**Record:** CW-2003-0023 (compiler id CWC-0819); case GAP2-33-004
**Title:** State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Banda Woman & Anr.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: S. P. Khare
**Case number / citation:** I (2006) ACC 405
**Judgment:** 2003-11-27 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-12-26 (1989)
**Place:** Sagar, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Banda; police station or unit: Banda police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CPC s.96; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 300
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named
**Victims:** Banda woman; Banda woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 75,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Replace final sentence with the recorded police version: defendants' case was that students and anti-social elements resorted to violence, so police fired in the air without aiming at anyone to protect public and government property. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The house of the plaintiffs was just at a 10 ft. height from the ground and, therefore, it is clear that so far as the plaintiffs are concerned, the act of the police officer was negligent. This negligence was qua the plaintiffs.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1040449/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56097929e4b014971133c71f); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/577972/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-another-vs-shantibai-and-another/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Banda Woman & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-11-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 75,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'I (2006) ACC 405', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1040449/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56097929e4b014971133c71f', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/577972/state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-another-vs-shantibai-and-another/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment corroborated across 4 mirrors; negligence finding and decree confirmed on appeal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0023)

## Bhopal Police personnel and others vs State of M.P. (CW-2004-0004)

**Record:** CW-2004-0004 (compiler id CWC-0217); case GAP2-33-001
**Title:** Bhopal Police personnel and others vs State of M.P.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Arijit Pasayat; C.K. Thakker
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 919 of 1999 / AIR 2005 SC 402
**Judgment:** 2004-11-16 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1984-06-19 (1984)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Bhopal; police station or unit: Shahjahanabad Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 330; IPC 201; Constitution of India Article 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Gulab Singh Chaudhury (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bhopal man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 7 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

Replace final sentence with the recorded defence: each accused denied the allegations; the s.313 version was that police received information of an injured/unconscious person lying near the Nala, and counsel argued the prosecution evidence (PW-12, PW-14) was not cogent. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The courts must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst kind of crimes in a civilized society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilized society. Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the citizens recognized by the Indian Constitution and is an affront to human dignity.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1102670/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Bhopal Police personnel and others vs State of M.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 2005 SC 402', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2004-11-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 2005 SC 402', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1102670/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court upheld the conviction of police officer Gulab Singh Chaudhury under IPC 304 Part II for the custodial torture and death of a Bhopal man
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2004-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0004)

## Banda Boy vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (CW-2005-0016)

**Record:** CW-2005-0016 (compiler id CWC-1247); case GAP3-75-001
**Title:** Banda Boy vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: R.V. Raveendran; A.K. Patnaik; Dipak Misra
**Case number / citation:** AIR 2006 MP 28; 2005(4) MPHT 260; 2006 ACJ 2262
**Judgment:** 2005-08-22 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-03-15 (2005)
**Place:** Sagar, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Banda; police station or unit: Madhya Pradesh Police, Banda (Sagar district); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Banda boy, age 8; Banda boy, age 17 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 4 lakh (Rs 4,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The younger deceased was seven years old per the court's findings (paras 2, 7) — standing on his house terrace; the 17-year-old was not part of the active mob. Remove '(8)'/'(17)' duplications. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In our considered view the death had occurred due to recklessness of the police.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1476648/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/506461/brijendra-thakur-vs-madhya-pradesh)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Banda Boy vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-08-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 400,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 2006 MP 28; 2005(4) MPHT 260; 2006 ACJ 2262', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1476648/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/506461/brijendra-thakur-vs-madhya-pradesh', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; police firing deaths held reckless, Rs 2 lakh compensation per death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 8, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 8-year-old boy'}; {'age': 17, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 17-year-old boy'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2005-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0016)

## Morena Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (CW-2006-0019)

**Record:** CW-2006-0019 (compiler id CWC-1248); case GAP3-75-002
**Title:** Morena Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: A.K. Patnaik; R.K. Gupta
**Case number / citation:** 2006(2) MPHT 18
**Judgment:** 2006-02-17 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-08-22 (1996)
**Place:** Morena, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Morena; police station or unit: City Kotwali, Morena; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307; IPC 34; IPC 309; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, City Kotwali, Morena; Sub-Inspector, City Kotwali, Morena; Head Constable, City Kotwali, Morena (3 in record)
**Victims:** Morena man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. A Morena man was picked up at Morena railway station for inquiry on 22 August 1996, suffered severe burn injuries at City Kotwali, Morena, and died in hospital at Gwalior on 24 August 1996. His father alleged that ASI, SI and Head Constable set his son on fire, citing a dying declaration, while the police claimed he slipped into the unlocked Malkhana and set himself ablaze, a version the CID probe accepted. The Court held the CJM had mechanically accepted the closure report without hearing the informant, quashed that acceptance and remitted the matter with liberty to order further investigation. The Court further held that even on the suicide version, keeping the Malkhana unlocked with inflammables inside was gross police negligence, and awarded Rs 3,00,000 compensation against the State for the Article 21 violation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Once a person is taken into custody of the Police, it is responsibility of the Police to ensure safety of his life.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/975911/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Morena Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-02-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2006(2) MPHT 18', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/975911/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; custodial death with gross police negligence, Rs 3 lakh compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0019)

## State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar (CW-2006-0010)

**Record:** CW-2006-0010 (compiler id CWC-0226); case MADHYA-011
**Title:** State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S.B. Sinha; Dalveer Bhandari
**Case number / citation:** Appeal (Crl.) No. 261 of 2004 / (2006) 8 SCC 693; AIR 2007 SC 163
**Judgment:** 2006-11-02 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-08-21 (1996)
**Place:** Bhind, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Malanpur; police station or unit: Malanpur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Shambhu Dayal Nagar (Assistant Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Malanpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

Replace final sentence with the recorded defence: the respondent denied the charge, alleged false implication out of grudge (noting his cousin PW3 turned hostile), called the pocket-recovery story untenable, and pleaded leniency after ten years. Reword 'Lokayukta trap party' to 'a police trap party (Special Police Establishment)'. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the Special Judge is restored.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/312089/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae40e4b01497114134d1)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-11-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2006) 8 SCC 693; AIR 2007 SC 163', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/312089/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae40e4b01497114134d1', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court set aside the MP HC acquittal and restored the Special Judge conviction of ASI Shambhu Dayal Nagar for accepting Rs 3,500 bribe in a Lokayukta trap.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-2006-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0010)

## Bajatta Khurd, Badwani Woman vs State of M.P. and Anr. (CW-2007-0011)

**Record:** CW-2007-0011 (compiler id CWC-0232); case MADHYA-006
**Title:** Bajatta Khurd, Badwani Woman vs State of M.P. and Anr.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: A. K. Patnaik; Ajit Singh
**Case number / citation:** 2008 CriLJ 47; 2007(4) MPHT 219
**Judgment:** 2007-09-25 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-07-25 (2007)
**Place:** Barwani, Madhya Pradesh (district at time: Badwani); city town: Bajatta Khurd, Badwani; police station or unit: Badwani police (PS Badwani); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 151; CrPC 107; Constitution Art 19; Constitution Art 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police officers effecting s.151 arrests, Badwani (Barwani) police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bajatta Khurd, Badwani woman; Bajatta Khurd, Badwani woman (91 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** Rs 10,000

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. On 25.7.2007 Badwani police arrested scores of Sardar Sarovar oustees agitating at the Jamin Hak Satyagraha and detained them in Badwani and Indore jails till 30.7.2007 purportedly under Section 151 CrPC. The State contended the agitators had blocked the highway, manhandled officials and created a law-and-order problem. The Court watched the CDs of the arrest and held the State's version totally false, finding the agitators were peacefully shouting slogans in exercise of Articles 19(1)(a)/(b) and the s.151 conditions (known design to commit a cognizable offence) were not met. It held the arrests and detention unauthorised violations of Articles 19 and 21 and awarded Rs 10,000 compensation to the petitioner and each agitator detained in jail, with liberty to recover from responsible officers after proper inquiry. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We, therefore, direct the State of Madhya Pradesh to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) to the petitioner and each of the male and female agitators, who were arrested in the evening of 25.7.2007 and thereafter detained in Badwani and Indore Jails, in violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution within a period of two months from today.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1103400/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 31
**display title redacted:** Bajatta Khurd, Badwani Woman vs State of M.P. and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-09-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2008 CriLJ 47; 2007(4) MPHT 219', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1103400/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary source verified: MP High Court Division Bench held the 25.7.2007 s.151 CrPC arrests and jail detention of the agitators unauthorised and violative of Articles 19 and 21, and awarded Rs 10,000 compensation to the petitioner and each agitator detained in jail (not those released soon after arrest), plus Rs 10,000 costs, with liberty to the State to recover from responsible officers after inquiry. Accused-actors are police; outcome adverse_finding_compensation confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0011)

## Ashok Kumar Jain and Rakesh Kumar vs State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-2008-0008)

**Record:** CW-2008-0008 (compiler id CWC-0225); case MADHYA-010
**Title:** Ashok Kumar Jain and Rakesh Kumar vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: R.C. Mishra
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeals against judgment dated 12-11-1990 in S.T. No. 125/1988 / (2008) ILR (MP) 934; (2008) 3 MPHT 176
**Judgment:** 2008-03-07 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-01-07 (1988)
**Place:** Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Mohangarh; police station or unit: Police Station Mohangarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 201; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ashok Kumar Jain (Station House Officer); Rakesh Kumar (Constable) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Mohangarh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

State the recorded defence: appellants claimed cross-firing with dacoits in the jungle near Khakrone and that a Mohangarh man died in the encounter; death occurred in the night intervening 7th/8th January 1988. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the result, both the appeals are dismissed and the impugned convictions as well as consequent sentences of the respective appellants are hereby affirmed.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/585871/ashok-kumar-jain-and-rakesh-kumar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b118e691cb22da6d30a2)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 31
**display title redacted:** Ashok Kumar Jain and Rakesh Kumar vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2008) ILR (MP) 934; (2008) 3 MPHT 176', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2008-03-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2008) ILR (MP) 934; (2008) 3 MPHT 176', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/585871/ashok-kumar-jain-and-rakesh-kumar-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b118e691cb22da6d30a2', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** MP HC dismissed both appeals and affirmed ss.330/201 convictions of SHO and constable.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0008)

## Jabalpur Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (CW-2008-0022)

**Record:** CW-2008-0022 (compiler id CWC-1249); case GAP3-75-003
**Title:** Jabalpur Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: A.K. Patnaik; Ajit Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 1754 of 2007 / 2008 SCC OnLine MP 501; 2008 Cri LJ 3281
**Judgment:** 2008-05-14 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-06-08 (1992)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Jabalpur; police station or unit: Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 420; IPC 34; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Jabalpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 70,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Replace final sentence with the recorded State version: the State denied the handcuffing was unnecessary (giving no reasons) and denied responsibility for the trial delay, blaming the court's leniency toward the appellant. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Nonetheless, the appellant was handcuffed without a valid justification and his dignity as a human being had been seriously affected.

**Sources (2):** [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48ddb607dba348fff3cc0); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/578685/hardeep-singh-anand-appellant-hash-state-of-mp-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Jabalpur Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-05-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 70,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2008 SCC OnLine MP 501; 2008 Cri LJ 3281', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48ddb607dba348fff3cc0', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/578685/hardeep-singh-anand-appellant-hash-state-of-mp-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified via mirror (primary 403 at check); unjustified handcuffing plus trial delay, Rs 70,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2008-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0022)

## Bhopal Police Constable vs State of M.P. and Others (CW-2009-0021)

**Record:** CW-2009-0021 (compiler id CWC-1251); case GAP3-76-002
**Title:** Bhopal Police Constable vs State of M.P. and Others
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Indore; judges: S.S. Kemkar
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 7220 of 2003 with O.A. No. 1352 of 2000 / (2009) 3 MPLJ 338; (2009) 03 MP CK 0005
**Judgment:** 2009-03-30 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-11-19 (1995)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Bhopal; police station or unit: 1st Battalion, SAF (guard duty, Chief Minister's Bungalow, Bhopal); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** MP Police Regulations Reg. 226; MP Police Regulations Reg. 270
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, 1st Battalion, SAF (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bhopal woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Remove victim's name (use role noun, e.g. 'a woman labourer') and replace final sentence with the recorded respondents' case: the State supported the dismissal, contending the DIG's suo motu revision under Regulation 270 was legal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the aforesaid, no illegality is found in the impugned action and the order by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/575872/govind-mane-appellant-hash-state-of-mp-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Bhopal Police Constable vs State of M.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-03-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2009) 3 MPLJ 338; (2009) 03 MP CK 0005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/575872/govind-mane-appellant-hash-state-of-mp-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; dismissal of SAF constable for on-duty sexual misconduct upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0021)

## Haricharan and Ors vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors (CW-2011-0003)

**Record:** CW-2011-0003 (compiler id CWC-0221); case MADHYA-006
**Title:** Haricharan and Ors vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: B. Sudershan Reddy; Surinder Singh Nijjar
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 581-584 of 2003 / (2011) 4 SCC 159
**Judgment:** 2011-03-09 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-10-08 (1983)
**Place:** Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Indar; police station or unit: Indar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 330
**Officers (gated display forms):** Anil Kumar Singh Kushwaha (Station House Officer); Ram Ujagar Singh (Head Constable); Nathuram (Head Constable); Haricharan (Constable); Mazid Hussain (Constable) (5 in record)
**Victims:** Indar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. An Indar man was illegally picked up and detained at Indar Police Station, Shivpuri, from October 8 to 11, 1983, where police personnel subjected him to horrific torture, including electric shocks to his scrotum, to extort a confession in a theft case. The victim sustained severe injuries and a resultant fatal brain haemorrhage, succumbing shortly after being dumped outside. Although the trial court acquitted the accused policemen, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted all five police personnel under Sections 304 Part II and 330 IPC, sentencing them to five years rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeals, affirming that an Indar man's death was a direct consequence of inexcusable and inhuman police torture.

> The evidence on the record clearly shows that death of an Indar man was a direct consequence of the inexcusable and inhuman torture by the police.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130578477/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af0ae4b01497114156db)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 32
**display title redacted:** Haricharan and Ors vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2011) 4 SCC 159', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-03-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2011) 4 SCC 159', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130578477/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af0ae4b01497114156db', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court affirmed the MP High Court conviction of five police personnel under IPC 304 Part II and 330 for custodial torture and death of an Indar man
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0003)

## Jabalpur Man v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (CW-2011-0022)

**Record:** CW-2011-0022 (compiler id CWC-0337); case SUPREM-018
**Title:** Jabalpur Man v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 2250-2251 of 2011 / (2012) 1 SCC 748
**Judgment:** 2011-12-05 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-06-08 (1992)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Jabalpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Jabalpur Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jabalpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court held there was no warrant for handcuffing the appellant, a coaching-centre owner trapped in a question-paper sale case on 8 June 1992, and that the unjustified handcuffing with published photographs adversely affected his dignity and led to tragic consequences including his sister death from shock. The Court found the ensuing trial dragged over 12 years till acquittal in August 2004, with five years delay attributable to the prosecution. It agreed with the Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench that Rs 70,000 did not do justice to the suffering and humiliation. It enhanced compensation to Rs 2 lakh payable by the State, without prejudice to a damages claim. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> There was no warrant for putting the appellant under handcuffs. His handcuffing was without justification.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/810564399/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af0ae4b01497114156d5)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Jabalpur Man v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-12-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2012) 1 SCC 748', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/810564399/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af0ae4b01497114156d5', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Unjustified handcuffing + 12-year delayed trial; compensation enhanced Rs 70k to Rs 2 lakh.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0022)

## Subhashchandra Joshi vs State of M.P. (CW-2012-0003)

**Record:** CW-2012-0003 (compiler id CWC-0228); case MADHYA-002
**Title:** Subhashchandra Joshi vs State of M.P.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Indore; judges: S.R. Waghmare; A.K. Shrivastava
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 994 of 2001 / (2012) 02 MP CK 0123
**Judgment:** 2012-02-07 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-07-18 (1999)
**Place:** Dewas, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Pipalrawan; police station or unit: Pipalrawan Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Subhashchandra Joshi (Head Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Pipalrawan man; Pipalrawan man; Pipalrawan man; Pipalrawan man (4 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Head Constable Subhashchandra Joshi of Pipalrawan Police Station, Dewas, while investigating a case against complainant \[name withheld\] and his three brothers, demanded Rs. 1,500 to release them on bail, threatening to send them to jail if unpaid. On 18.07.1999 the Lokayukta (SPE Ujjain) trapped him red-handed inside the police station accepting treated currency, with a positive phenolphthalein test and recovery of the notes from his bag. The Special Judge, Dewas, convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) dismissed his appeal, holding motive, demand and acceptance proved and rejecting his afterthought medicine-contamination defence, directing surrender by 02.04.2012.

> We have also gone through the reasonings assigned by learned Special Judge convicting the appellant and we find them to be quite cogent as it is based on correct appreciation of evidence and law and hence, by extending our stamp of approval to those reasonings and findings we hereby dismiss this appeal.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/598259/subhashchandra-joshi-vs-state-of-mp/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e668e4607dba6b53433ff6)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Subhashchandra Joshi vs State of M.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2012) 02 MP CK 0123', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2012-02-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2012) 02 MP CK 0123', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/598259/subhashchandra-joshi-vs-state-of-mp/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e668e4607dba6b53433ff6', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** MP High Court (Indore Division Bench) dismissed the appeal of Head Constable Subhashchandra Joshi, affirming his PC Act conviction for the Rs 1,500 bribe trap at Pipalrawan police station.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0003)

## State of M.P. vs Madhya Pradesh Police personnel and others (CW-2013-0019)

**Record:** CW-2013-0019 (compiler id CWC-1256); case GAP3-77-005
**Title:** State of M.P. vs Madhya Pradesh Police personnel and others
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: S.K. Gangele; G.D. Saxena
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal No. 573 of 2011 / (2014) 2 MPHT 473; (2013) 1 MPLJ 583; (2013) 01 MP CK 0138
**Judgment:** 2013-01-15 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-01-01 (1998)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Gwalior; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 420 (tried; acquitted); PC Act 1988 s.8/9 (tried; acquitted); MP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Madhya Pradesh Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Gwalior man; Gwalior man; Gwalior woman (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Police officer faced a departmental enquiry on charges of taking Rs. 28,000, Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 10,000 from three persons on the promise of securing them police employment; ten witnesses deposed, the charges were found proved, and the Superintendent of Police dismissed him, affirmed on departmental appeal. He was separately acquitted in three criminal cases under Section 420 IPC and Sections 8/9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and a Single Judge reinstated him under Police Regulation 241. The Division Bench held the criminal acquittals were on benefit of doubt or lack of evidence and did not wipe out the misconduct proved in the departmental enquiry on a different standard of proof. Allowing the State's appeal, the Court set aside the reinstatement order and restored the dismissal from service.

> From three persons, the respondent No. 1 had taken money with a promise that he would secure employment of some persons in the police. It is a charge of corruption. The respondent No. 1 was a member of police force.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/596541/state-of-mp-vs-jandel-singh-and-others/); (2014) 2 MPHT 473; (2013) 1 MPLJ 583
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** State of M.P. vs Madhya Pradesh Police personnel and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-01-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2014) 2 MPHT 473; (2013) 1 MPLJ 583; (2013) 01 MP CK 0138', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/596541/state-of-mp-vs-jandel-singh-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2014) 2 MPHT 473', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2013) 1 MPLJ 583', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** MP HC Division Bench restored dismissal of policeman for taking bribes promising police jobs; criminal acquittals held on technical/benefit-of-doubt grounds, no bar under Regulation 241.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0019)

## Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable vs State of M.P. and Others (CW-2013-0029)

**Record:** CW-2013-0029 (compiler id CWC-1255); case GAP3-77-004
**Title:** Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable vs State of M.P. and Others
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: Sujoy Paul
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 7868 of 2003 / LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-461; (2013) 07 MP CK 0250
**Judgment:** 2013-07-25 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-07-20 (2001)
**Place:** Madhya Pradesh; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Head Constable, with 23 years of service in the Madhya Pradesh Police, was charge-sheeted on 8 June 2001 on two charges arising from an incident dated 20 July 2001, and a regular departmental enquiry found both charges established on the evidence of eyewitnesses, leading to dismissal from service affirmed on appeal. He challenged the dismissal on grounds including reliance on a preliminary enquiry, hearsay, the incident occurring off duty hours and outside his posting area, and disproportionality. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held it was not a case of no evidence, that off-duty conduct reflecting on establishment discipline amounts to misconduct, and that the charges were very grave with punishment commensurate to the misconduct. The Court observed his conduct was highly improper and unbecoming of a police constable, and dismissed the petition with no costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The police force is appointed to save the life and dignity of the citizens and not to snatch their dignity.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/600186/nemi-chand-sharma-vs-state-of-mp-and-others/); LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-461
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable vs State of M.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-07-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-461; (2013) 07 MP CK 0250', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/600186/nemi-chand-sharma-vs-state-of-mp-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-461', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** MP HC (Gwalior) upheld dismissal of Head Constable on two grave charges proved in departmental enquiry; charge text vernacular-omitted in source, outcome certain.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0029)

## BSF Constable (dismissed) vs Union of India and Others (CW-2013-0036)

**Record:** CW-2013-0036 (compiler id CWC-1254); case GAP3-77-003
**Title:** BSF Constable (dismissed) vs Union of India and Others
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: Sujoy Paul
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 7455/2011 / (2014) 1 MPJR 45; (2014) 1 MPLJ 600; (2013) 10 MP CK 0231
**Judgment:** 2013-10-22 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Tekanpur; police station or unit: 35th Battalion BSF (tried by SSFC at STC, BSF Tekanpur); force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** BSF Act 1968 (SSFC trial); BSF Act 1968 s.117(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (dismissed), 35th Battalion BSF (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

BSF Constable was charge-sheeted on 29 March 2011 on a grave charge of sodomy and tried by a Summary Security Force Court at STC BSF Tekanpur, which found the charge proved and dismissed him from service with one year's rigorous imprisonment in civil jail on 18 May 2011, affirmed on appeal on 27 September 2011. He challenged the punishment contending the allegations were IPC offences not triable under the BSF Act, the convening authority was incompetent, and CrPC and Evidence Act procedures were not followed. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held the SSFC trial competent, that the CrPC and Evidence Act do not apply to SSFC trials, that the bar on the accused's friend cross-examining witnesses under Rule 157 is valid, and that no personal hearing is required under Section 117(2). The Court held the charges very grave and the punishment not harsh or excessive, and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As analyzed above, there is no substance in the petition. The charges established against the petitioner are very grave. It cannot be said that the petitioner is subjected to any harsh/excessive punishment.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/600574/jitender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others/); (2014) 1 MPJR 45; (2014) 1 MPLJ 600
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** BSF Constable (dismissed) vs Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-10-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2014) 1 MPJR 45; (2014) 1 MPLJ 600; (2013) 10 MP CK 0231', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/600574/jitender-singh-vs-union-of-india-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2014) 1 MPJR 45', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2014) 1 MPLJ 600', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** MP HC (Gwalior) upheld SSFC dismissal plus one year RI of BSF constable on grave sodomy charge; CrPC/Evidence Act held inapplicable to SSFC trials.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0036)

## State of M.P. vs BSF Head Constable (CW-2014-0028)

**Record:** CW-2014-0028 (compiler id CWC-1259); case GAP3-77-008
**Title:** State of M.P. vs BSF Head Constable
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: S.K. Palo; S.K. Gangele
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2000 / (2015) CriLJ 763; (2014) 3 JLJ 225; (2014) 4 MPHT 144; (2014) 07 MP CK 0106
**Judgment:** 2014-07-24 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-05-08 (1990)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Tekanpur; police station or unit: BSF Tekanpur Academy (PS Dabra); force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 354 (convicted by HC); IPC 376/511 (acquitted at trial)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, BSF Tekanpur Academy (1 in record)
**Victims:** Tekanpur girl, age 8 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** fine
**Sentence type:** fine (fine)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. On the night of 8-9 May 1990, BSF Head Constable, living upstairs in the same Tekanpur Academy quarter building, lured his 8-year-old neighbour upstairs on the pretext of opening a lock and sexually assaulted her. The trial court acquitted him under Sections 376/511 IPC on 8 April 1994 giving benefit of doubt over a contradictory medical re-examination. In the State's appeal under Section 378 CrPC, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held the trial court erred in recording a simpliciter acquittal as it was a clear-cut case of outraging the modesty of a minor girl, and that no fresh Section 354 charge was needed as it is a cognate offence under Section 222 CrPC. The Court set aside the acquittal, held him guilty under Section 354 IPC, and, noting almost 24 years had passed, imposed only a fine of Rs. 25,000 with six months' RI in default, issuing a non-bailable warrant as he remained absent.

> Therefore, we set aside the judgment of acquittal and allow the appeal. We hold the accused/respondent \[name withheld\] guilty of offence u/s 354 of IPC.

**Sources (4):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/606273/state-of-mp-vs-surendra-singh/); (2015) CriLJ 763; (2014) 3 JLJ 225; (2014) 4 MPHT 144
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** State of M.P. vs BSF Head Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-07-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2015) CriLJ 763; (2014) 3 JLJ 225; (2014) 4 MPHT 144; (2014) 07 MP CK 0106', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/606273/state-of-mp-vs-surendra-singh/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2015) CriLJ 763', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2014) 3 JLJ 225', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2014) 4 MPHT 144', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** MP HC Division Bench set aside acquittal and convicted BSF Head Constable u/s 354 IPC for sexual assault on 8-year-old neighbour; fine Rs.25,000 given 24-year delay. Case no. per court-record header is Crl.A. 577/2000, not 108/1994 as agent cited.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2014-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0028)

## Maihar Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-2016-0027)

**Record:** CW-2016-0027 (compiler id CWC-1261); case GAP3-78-002
**Title:** Maihar Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: S. K. Seth; Rajendra Mahajan
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 3130 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2016-04-29 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-11-29 (2009)
**Place:** Satna, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Maihar; police station or unit: Police Station Maihar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 177; IPC 182; IPC 205; IPC 365; IPC 201; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Head Constable at time of incident), Police Station Maihar, Satna; Station House Officer, Police Station Maihar, Satna (2 in record)
**Victims:** Maihar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5.8 lakh (Rs 5,80,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. On 29 November 2009, Head Constable of PS Maihar (Satna) took a Maihar man @ a Maihar man from his home in village Dhanwahi for interrogation; he was never seen again. The court found the police fabricated a paper trail showing his arrest on 2 December 2009 and release on bail, with an impersonator produced before the SDM, a fact confirmed by a CID enquiry and a judicial enquiry by the CJM Satna. Treating the untraced disappearance as a custodial death under the Nilabati Behera principle, the Division Bench held the State, SP Satna, SHO and \[name withheld\] jointly and severally liable. It ordered Rs 5,80,000 compensation to the wife and two sons within two months with 6 percent default interest, disbursed under the District Judge Satna's supervision, noting a criminal case against \[name withheld\] was pending trial.

> Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 jointly and severely pay to respondent a Maihar man's wife \[name withheld\] and his two sons a total compensation of Rs. 5,80,000/-

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143929519/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6.1
**display title redacted:** Maihar Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-04-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 580,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 3130 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143929519/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Custodial disappearance established; Rs 5.8L compensation ordered against State, SP, SHO and SI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2016-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0027)

## Bhopal Woman and Anr. vs State of M.P. and Ors. (CW-2016-0003)

**Record:** CW-2016-0003 (compiler id CWC-0227); case MADHYA-012
**Title:** Bhopal Woman and Anr. vs State of M.P. and Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Dipak Misra; Shiva Kirti Singh
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 30 of 2015 / (2016) 11 SCC 703
**Judgment:** 2016-06-03 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-11-27 (2012)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Bhopal; police station or unit: Cyber Cell / State Cyber Police, Bhopal; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 420; IPC 34; IT Act s.66-D
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cyber Cell, Bhopal; Head Constable, Cyber Cell, Bhopal; Police personnel, Cyber Cell, Bhopal; Police personnel, Cyber Cell, Bhopal (4 in record)
**Victims:** Bhopal woman; Bhopal woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court held the arrest and detention of Dr. A Bhopal woman, an NRI doctor, and her septuagenarian advocate mother illegal and awarded Rs 5 lakh each as public-law compensation. On a Jabalpur complainant's civil dispute over an imaging-machine purchase given criminal colour in FIR 24/2012, Cyber Cell Bhopal arrested the women at their Pune residence on 27 November 2012 without following Sections 41/41-A CrPC or the D.K. Basu norms, transported them to Bhopal in an unreserved train compartment without producing them before the local Magistrate, and kept them in custody for weeks. The Court held their dignity seriously jeopardized, quashed the prosecution, and left the State at liberty to proceed against the erring officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the dignity of the petitioners, a doctor and a practicing Advocate has been seriously jeopardized

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103942103/); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/06/15/state-of-m-p-to-pay-rs-10-lakh-compensation-for-illegally-arresting-two-women/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Bhopal Woman and Anr. vs State of M.P. and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-06-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2016) 11 SCC 703', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103942103/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/06/15/state-of-m-p-to-pay-rs-10-lakh-compensation-for-illegally-arresting-two-women/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; illegal arrest/detention of two women, Rs 5 lakh each.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2016-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0003)

## Bhopal Police Constable vs The State of M.P. (CW-2017-0025)

**Record:** CW-2017-0025 (compiler id CWC-1260); case GAP3-78-001
**Title:** Bhopal Police Constable vs The State of M.P.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: Vijay Kumar Shukla
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 23175 of 2003
**Judgment:** 2017-05-23 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-01-01 (1988)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Bhopal; police station or unit: Police Station Mishrod, Bhopal; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 376
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Station Mishrod, Bhopal (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bhopal girl, age 14 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Constable, posted at Police Station Mishrod, Bhopal, was charge-sheeted in February 1988 for pursuing a 14-year-old girl, developing physical relations with her, and thereby causing her pregnancy and delivery of a child. He was acquitted in the criminal case under Section 376 IPC on 7 March 1992 as the prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix was below 16, after which the department held a fresh enquiry and the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal dismissed him on 11 January 1993, affirmed by the DIG and DGP. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held the victim's firm statement of forcible intercourse under threats, corroborated by her parents with no previous enmity, sustained the enquiry findings, and that a benefit-of-doubt acquittal applying the criminal standard of proof does not bar departmental action. The Court held involvement in a Section 376 case itself impaired the image of the disciplined police force, gave its stamp of approval to the dismissal, and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I do not find any illegality and perversity of approach in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in writ jurisdiction and the same being impregnable deserves to and are given stamp of approval of this Court.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28000019/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** Bhopal Police Constable vs The State of M.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-05-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 23175 of 2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28000019/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** MP HC (Jabalpur) upheld dismissal of Mishrod PS constable for sexual exploitation of 14-year-old resulting in pregnancy; criminal acquittal on age-doubt held no bar to departmental action.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0025)

## Mohan Barodiya Man v. Lokayukta Special Police Establishment, Bhopal (CW-2017-0008)

**Record:** CW-2017-0008 (compiler id CWC-0436); case SWBRIBER-009
**Title:** Mohan Barodiya Man v. Lokayukta Special Police Establishment, Bhopal
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Indore
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 952/2003 / LAWS(MPH)-2017-9-83
**Judgment:** 2017-09-01 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-01-07 (2002)
**Place:** Shajapur, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Mohan Barodiya; police station or unit: Police Station Mohan Barodiya; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Police Station Mohan Barodiya, Shajapur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mohan Barodiya man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) affirmed the conviction of SHO of Police Station Mohan Barodiya by the Special Judge, Shajapur (Special Case 1/2002, judgment 26 September 2003) under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case was that when complainant \[name withheld\] reported on 7 January 2002 that Ramesh Chandra had snatched Rs. 915 from him, the SHO demanded Rs. 1,000 to take action, and on 16 January 2002 a Lokayukta trap at Jain Uphar Grih caught him accepting the money with phenolphthalein wash turning pink. The affirmation, despite the complainant turning hostile, is expressly recorded in two later Indore Bench judgments. The sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine on each count stands affirmed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court in the case of \[name withheld\] Vs. Lokayukta, Special Police Establishment, Bhopal (Criminal Appeal No. 952/2003) even though the complainant has turned hostile, has affirmed the conviction.

**Sources (3):** [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=417102155100&title=keshram-chaudhary-vs-lokayukta-special-police-establishment-bhopal); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114986801/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87094554/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Mohan Barodiya Man v. Lokayukta Special Police Establishment, Bhopal
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'LAWS(MPH)-2017-9-83', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2017-09-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'LAWS(MPH)-2017-9-83', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=417102155100&title=keshram-chaudhary-vs-lokayukta-special-police-establishment-bhopal', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114986801/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87094554/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** MP HC headnote text retrieved; conviction affirmed per two later HC judgments citing Cr.A.952/2003; deciding judge not visible.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0008)

## Gwalior Police Constable and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-2018-0020)

**Record:** CW-2018-0020 (compiler id CWC-1262); case GAP3-79-001
**Title:** Gwalior Police Constable and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: Sanjay Yadav
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 3479 of 2015
**Judgment:** 2018-01-03 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-05-13 (2014)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Gwalior; police station or unit: District Executive Force, Gwalior (hospital guard duty, J.A. Hospital); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, District Executive Force, Gwalior (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Constable \[name withheld\] was on guard duty over undertrial Pradeep Rathore in the general ward of J.A. Hospital, Gwalior, when the undertrial escaped between 3 am and 6 am on 13 May 2014. The department found he left his post to answer nature's call without informing a fellow constable, and dismissed him from service; the appeal was affirmed. The court held the joint enquiry under Rule 18 of the 1966 CCA Rules was valid, the enquiry officer had not acted as prosecutor, and the petitioner was solely guilty of dereliction. It declined to interfere with the dismissal and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> this Court declines to interfere with the punishment meted out to the petitioner.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35598633/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Gwalior Police Constable and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-01-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 3479 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35598633/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal of guard constable for undertrial's escape upheld; dereliction proved.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0020)

## Bhind Man and Anr vs State of M.P. (CW-2018-0007)

**Record:** CW-2018-0007 (compiler id CWC-0218); case SWFALSEI-007
**Title:** Bhind Man and Anr vs State of M.P.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: Vivek Agarwal; G.S. Ahluwalia
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2004
**Judgment:** 2018-05-24 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-01-25 (2003)
**Place:** Bhind, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Bhind; police station or unit: Bhind Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 364A; Constitution of India Article 21; Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam 1981 s.11/13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating Officer, Bhind Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bhind man; Bhind man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 6 lakh (Rs 6,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Appellants Bhure and Shripal were convicted under Section 364-A IPC and the MPDVPK Act by the Special Judge, Bhind, and spent 12 to 15 years in prison for alleged kidnapping for ransom. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) acquitted the appellants, finding the prosecution story fabricated in collusion between the complainant and the police to gain popularity through fake and imaginary encounters. Holding that the appellants' fundamental rights under Article 21 were deliberately and maliciously violated by police misconduct, the High Court directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to pay Rs. 3,00,000 compensation to each surviving appellant, with liberty to recover the amount from the erring persons. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus, it is held that as it has been found that the appellant was prosecuted with deliberate and malafide intention, so that the complainant may settle his scores, and the police also joined hands with the complainant so that it can gain popularity by fake and imaginary encounters with the miscreants, then the State must compensate the appellants for the utter violation of their fundamental rights as for no reason, they were compelled to remain in jail for such a long time.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58361786/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/mp-hc-directs-state-to-compensate-victims-of-malicious-implication-for-making-them-spend-more-than-a-decade-in-jail-read-judgment)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** Bhind Man and Anr vs State of M.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-05-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 600,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58361786/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/mp-hc-directs-state-to-compensate-victims-of-malicious-implication-for-making-them-spend-more-than-a-decade-in-jail-read-judgment', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted appellants after 12-15 years incarceration in fabricated abduction case and awarded Rs. 3 lakh compensation each for police misconduct.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2018-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0007)

## Badoni Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-2018-0008)

**Record:** CW-2018-0008 (compiler id CWC-0219); case MADHYA-004; aliases: CWC-0663
**Title:** Badoni Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: S.A. Dharmadhikari; Anand Pathak
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 812 of 2008 & 866 of 2008
**Judgment:** 2018-07-06 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-07-04 (2006)
**Place:** Datia, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Badoni; police station or unit: Badoni Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 364A; Constitution of India Article 21; Madhya Pradesh Dacoity and Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Act 1981 s.11/13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Badoni Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Badoni man; Badoni man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Appellants Durga and a Badoni man, who were already lodged in jail in another case, were falsely implicated in an abduction-for-ransom case registered at Badoni Police Station, Datia, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Special Judge. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) acquitted both appellants, observing that the test identification parade was vitiated by police mischief who pre-showed the accused to the victim and fabricated evidence to frame innocent persons. Holding that the appellants' right to life under Article 21 was severely violated by tainted prosecution and poor investigation, the High Court ordered the State to pay Rs. 1,00,000 compensation each within two months, with liberty to recover the cost from erring investigating officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Deposition of Laxman (PW-1) in respect of test identification reveals that victim-Laxman (PW-1) had already seen a Badoni man at Police Station and therefore, the purpose of test identification at later stage in jail had no meaning and the same is vitiated by the mischief of the police authorities. The purpose of test identification is not to identify the already identified person.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173886316/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/person-falsely-implicated-by-state-in-criminal-case-deserves-to-be-compensated-madhya-pradesh-hc-read-judgment); [mphc.gov.in](https://mphc.gov.in/upload/gwalior/MPHCGWL/2008/CRA/812/CRA_812_2008_FinalOrder_06-Jul-2018.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154651656/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Badoni Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-07-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 812 of 2008 & 866 of 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173886316/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/person-falsely-implicated-by-state-in-criminal-case-deserves-to-be-compensated-madhya-pradesh-hc-read-judgment', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://mphc.gov.in/upload/gwalior/MPHCGWL/2008/CRA/812/CRA_812_2008_FinalOrder_06-Jul-2018.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154651656/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted appellants of abduction charges after ~12 years in jail due to tainted investigation and awarded Rs. 1 lakh compensation each.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2018-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0008)

## Datia Police Constable No. 492 vs State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-2019-0028)

**Record:** CW-2019-0028 (compiler id CWC-1263); case GAP3-79-002
**Title:** Datia Police Constable No. 492 vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: G. S. Ahluwalia
**Case number / citation:** WP 5587 of 2009(S)
**Judgment:** 2019-04-25 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-06-10 (2000)
**Place:** Datia, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Datia; police station or unit: 29th Battalion, Special Armed Forces, Datia; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable No. 492, 29th Battalion, Special Armed Forces, Datia (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Constable of the 29th Battalion SAF, Datia, overstayed sanctioned leave from 10 June 2000 and reported back only on 16 April 2001, a 310-day unauthorised absence, with ten prior punishments for similar absences. After a departmental enquiry found both charges proved, the Commandant removed him from service on 30 June 2001 and the appeal was dismissed on limitation. The court held the petitioner showed no prejudice from the presiding officer also acting as presenting officer, so the enquiry stood. It held removal proportionate to admitted habitual misconduct and dismissed the petition on merits and on delay and laches. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of removal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20085548/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Datia Police Constable No. 492 vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-04-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'WP 5587 of 2009(S)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20085548/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Removal for 310-day unauthorised absence with habitual record upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0028)

## Dhar Man vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (CW-2020-0004)

**Record:** CW-2020-0004 (compiler id CWC-0233); case MADHYA-007
**Title:** Dhar Man vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Indore; judges: S. C. Sharma; Shailendra Shukla
**Case number / citation:** WP No. 26923 of 2019
**Judgment:** 2020-02-10 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-10-18 (2019)
**Place:** Dhar, Madhya Pradesh; police station or unit: PS Bar, District Dhar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 226; Constitution Art 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dhar district; Station House Officer, Police Station Bar, Dhar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Dhar man, age 68 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)

On 18-10-2019 the SHO, PS Bar arrested 68-year-old Husan of Dhar on a parole-violation warrant meant for Husna, a life-convict step-brother who had died in 2016, and Husan was lodged in Central Jail Indore to serve another man's sentence. The State, through SDOP \[name withheld\]'s affidavit and same-day rojnamcha entries, insisted the arrested man was the convict. The Court ordered a fingerprint-based inquiry by the Principal Secretary (Home), which proved an innocent lookalike had languished in jail for four months. The Court held the detention illegal, awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation, ordered contempt cases against the SDOP and the rojnamcha-entry makers, and directed biometric identification of all arrestees. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> State Government shall pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) to the father of the petitioner.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46177798/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/madhya-pradesh-hc-directs-state-to-pay-5l-to-man-detained-illegally-initiates-contempt-proceedings-against-police-authorities-read-judgment-152622)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Dhar Man vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-02-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'WP No. 26923 of 2019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46177798/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/madhya-pradesh-hc-directs-state-to-pay-5l-to-man-detained-illegally-initiates-contempt-proceedings-against-police-authorities-read-judgment-152622', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary source verified: MP High Court (Indore Bench) Division Bench held 68-year-old tribal was arrested 18-10-2019 on a warrant meant for his deceased step-brother \[name withheld\] (ST 41/1976 convict, died 2016) and illegally detained in Central Jail Indore for four months; fingerprint inquiry by Principal Secretary (Home) proved mistaken identity. Court awarded Rs 5,00,000 compensation, ordered immediate release, registered contempt cases against the SDOP (false affidavit) and the 18-10-2019 rojnamcha-entry makers, and mandated biometric identification on arrest. Accused-actors are police; outcome adverse_finding_compensation confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2020-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0004)

## Madhya Pradesh Police Constable vs State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-2020-0018)

**Record:** CW-2020-0018 (compiler id CWC-1264); case GAP3-79-003
**Title:** Madhya Pradesh Police Constable vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Indore; judges: S. C. Sharma; Shailendra Shukla
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal No. 691 of 2019
**Judgment:** 2020-05-29 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-08-29 (2003)
**Place:** Shajapur, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Shajapur; police station or unit: Madhya Pradesh Police, Shajapur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police, Shajapur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Constable, appointed in 1982 and transferred from Agar to Shajapur, was charge-sheeted in December 2003 for unauthorised absence in August-September 2003 against a record of twenty earlier minor penalties for absence. After due enquiry the charges were proved and he was compulsorily retired in June 2004; the appeal, mercy petition and writ petition all failed. The Division Bench held the Supreme Court cases he cited involved singular absences and were distinguishable from his habitual misconduct as uniformed personnel. Finding no procedural irregularity and the punishment not disproportionate, it declined admission of the writ appeal.

> The punishment is certainly not at all disproportionate to the guilt of the employee and, therefore, the admission is declined.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97037983/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Madhya Pradesh Police Constable vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-05-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Appeal No. 691 of 2019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97037983/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Compulsory retirement for habitual unauthorised absence upheld in writ appeal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2020-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0018)

## CISF Sub-Inspector (Executive) vs Union of India & Ors. (CW-2020-0020)

**Record:** CW-2020-0020 (compiler id CWC-1193); case GAP3-43-002
**Title:** CISF Sub-Inspector (Executive) vs Union of India & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw; Asha Menon
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 6774/2020 / AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 1347
**Judgment:** 2020-09-23 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2015-07-18 (2015)
**Place:** Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Chhindwara; police station or unit: CISF (posted Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh); force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 376(2)(c); IPC 376(2)(f); IPC 506; SC/ST Act 1989 s.3(2)(v); SC/ST Act 1989 s.3(1)(w)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Executive), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chhindwara woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. CISF Sub-Inspector (Executive) \[name withheld\] was arrested on 20.07.2015 in FIR No. 412/2015 alleging rape and criminal intimidation at Pooja Lodge, Chhindwara, while on leave from his Chhindwara posting. He was suspended, departmentally charged with pre-planned hotel booking tarnishing the force's image, producing an unauthorised identity card, and the criminal case itself, and removed from service on 26.03.2016. Though he was later acquitted in the criminal trial after the complainant turned hostile, the Delhi High Court held the disciplinary finding was one no reasonable person could fault, refused interference under Articles 226/227, and dismissed his writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Even otherwise, the version of the petitioner, of inspite of reaching Chhindwara, where his wife and family was, not proceeding immediately to his home/residence but checking into a hotel, has rightly been construed by the Disciplinary Authorities as pre-planning by the petitioner. In this context, we may notice that the petitioner does not dispute (a) the visit of the insurance agent / complainant, a lady, unaccompanied with her husband or anyone else, in his room in the hotel at Chhindwara; (b) the lodging of the FIR of the offence of rape and other offences; and, (c) arrest of the petitioner. From the said admitted facts and the conduct of the petitioner, notwithstanding the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, order of upholding of the charge by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be said to be such which no reasonable person could have reached.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156216700/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1048813/mukesh-gurjar-appellant-hash-union-of-india-ors-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** CISF Sub-Inspector (Executive) vs Union of India & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-09-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 1347', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156216700/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1048813/mukesh-gurjar-appellant-hash-union-of-india-ors-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Removal from CISF upheld despite criminal acquittal; sexual-misconduct discipline case.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2020-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0020)

## Gwalior Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-2020-0015)

**Record:** CW-2020-0015 (compiler id CWC-0699); case GAP12-003
**Title:** Gwalior Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 13057 of 2020
**Judgment:** 2020-12-02 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2020-07-25 (2020)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Gwalior; police station or unit: Bahodapur Police Station, Gwalior; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 294; IPC 323; IPC 341; IPC 379; IPC 380; IPC 424; IPC 452; IPC 34; PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.7A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (then SHO), Bahodapur Police Station, Gwalior; Sub-Inspector, Bahodapur Police Station, Gwalior; Constable, Bahodapur Police Station, Gwalior (3 in record)
**Victims:** Gwalior man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

On 25 July 2020 the officers forcibly removed the petitioner's shop goods to the police station and extracted a vacation undertaking in what was a civil landlord-tenant dispute, and on 14 August 2020 held him in the station for 7.5 hours without arrest memo on a mistaken-identity reward pretext, circulating his photograph as an arrested criminal. The court found malice and gross misuse of uniform, rejected Section 76 IPC protection for want of bona fide belief, and recorded violations of liberty, dignity, reputation and privacy under Article 21. It awarded Rs.5,00,000 (Rs.2L property damage + Rs.3L rights violation) recoverable from the three officers with Rs.20,000 costs, and directed the Lokayukt to lodge an FIR including under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The present case is a glaring example of gross misuse of police uniform.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19697017/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123131665/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/victims-suspects-article-21-police-violates-their-privacy-rights-encourages-media-trials-madhya-pradesh-high-court-165518)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 67
**display title redacted:** Gwalior Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-12-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 13057 of 2020', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19697017/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123131665/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/victims-suspects-article-21-police-violates-their-privacy-rights-encourages-media-trials-madhya-pradesh-high-court-165518', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Single-judge judgment verified; Rs 5L + Lokayukt FIR for illegal detention/shop eviction.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2020-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0015)

## Bhopal Man v. State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-2022-0006)

**Record:** CW-2022-0006 (compiler id CWC-0660); case SWFALSEI-005; aliases: CWC-1450
**Title:** Bhopal Man v. State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: Atul Sreedharan; Sunita Yadav
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1580 of 2009 / 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 137
**Judgment:** 2022-05-04 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-09-20 (2008)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Bhopal; police station or unit: Bhopal Police (murder investigation); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector General, Bhopal Range, Madhya Pradesh Police; Town Inspector, Police Station Koh-e-Fiza, Bhopal; CSP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh Police (0 in record)
**Victims:** Bhopal man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 42 lakh (Rs 42,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Bhopal man, a Gond tribal final-year MBBS student, was convicted of murdering Shruti Hill by the Bhopal sessions court in 2009 and spent over thirteen years in jail as undertrial and convict. The High Court held the case was deliberately botched up, with a manipulative and preconceived investigation conducted for the sole purpose of falsely implicating him, possibly to shield the actual culprit known to higher police echelons. It set aside the conviction and compared his fate, as eternal damnation, with Nambi Narayanan's ordeal. It awarded Rs 42 lakh compensation payable within ninety days, preserved his separate tort claim for malicious prosecution with adjustment, and ordered preservation of the trial record and DLSA assistance. No individual officer was named in the judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This is a case that has been deliberately botched up and the Appellant falsely implicated to protect perhaps, the actual perpetrators of the offence who may have been known to the higher echelons of the state police.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76278100/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/madhya-pradesh-high-court-judgment-416750.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/madhya-pradesh-high-court-man-wrongly-convicted-compensation-malicious-investigation-198417); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/malicious-prosecution-by-police-madhya-pradesh-high-court-awards-42-lakh-compensation-to-st-medical-student-who-spent-13-years-in-jail)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 68
**display title redacted:** Bhopal Man v. State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-05-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 4,200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2022 LiveLaw (MP) 137', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76278100/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/madhya-pradesh-high-court-judgment-416750.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/madhya-pradesh-high-court-man-wrongly-convicted-compensation-malicious-investigation-198417', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/malicious-prosecution-by-police-madhya-pradesh-high-court-awards-42-lakh-compensation-to-st-medical-student-who-spent-13-years-in-jail', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC set aside murder conviction as false implication, awarded Rs 42 lakh; subcategory corrected.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0006)

## Nagalwadi Man and Anr. vs State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-2023-0003)

**Record:** CW-2023-0003 (compiler id CWC-0229); case MADHYA-003; aliases: CWC-0590; CWC-1445
**Title:** Nagalwadi Man and Anr. vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Indore; judges: Subodh Abhyankar
**Case number / citation:** Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 42867 of 2020 / 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 33
**Judgment:** 2023-02-14 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-11-02 (2019)
**Place:** Barwani, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Nagalwadi; police station or unit: Police Station Nagalwadi (Nangalwadi); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 420; IPC 467; IPC 468; MP Excise Act s.34(2); Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Police Station Nagalwadi, Barwani (1 in record)
**Victims:** Nagalwadi man, age 56; Nagalwadi man, age 41 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 40 lakh (Rs 40,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Two Tamil Nadu truck drivers carrying a Kerala State Beverages Corporation liquor consignment were apprehended at PS Nagalwadi (Barwani) on 2-11-2019 and jailed until July 2021 on cheating, forgery and excise charges over a shortfall of 59 boxes out of 1600. The court found on the face of the charge-sheet that the documents were valid and the investigation was carried out with mala fide intent to falsely implicate the petitioners. It held the conduct amounted to misfeasance violating Article 21, quashed the charge-sheet and all proceedings in ST No. 25/2020, and directed the State to pay Rs 20 lakh compensation to each petitioner within two months, with liberty to recover from the erring officers after due process. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is worth mentioning here that the petitioners were arrested on 02.11.2019 and were subsequently released on bail by this Court only on 15.07.2021 in M.Cr.C. No.29973 of 2021, thus, they have been imprisoned for a period of 1 year and 8 months in this frivolous case lodged only at the whims and caprice of the concerned police officers.

**Sources (7):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197341927/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/madhya-pradesh-high-court-20-lakh-compensation-wrongful-imprisonment-frivolous-case-221949); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1153905/sakul-hamid-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh/); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/mp-hc-20-lakh-compensation-truck-drivers-liquor-illegally-1463624); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/mcrc428672020finalorder14-feb-2023wk-1471090.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/mcrc428672020finalorder14-feb-2023-459637.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](http://indiankanoon.org/doc/197341927/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Nagalwadi Man and Anr. vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-02-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 4,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023 LiveLaw (MP) 33', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197341927/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/madhya-pradesh-high-court-20-lakh-compensation-wrongful-imprisonment-frivolous-case-221949', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1153905/sakul-hamid-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/mp-hc-20-lakh-compensation-truck-drivers-liquor-illegally-1463624', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/mcrc428672020finalorder14-feb-2023wk-1471090.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/mcrc428672020finalorder14-feb-2023-459637.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'http://indiankanoon.org/doc/197341927/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Indore Bench quashed false charge-sheet as misfeasance; Rs 20 lakh each to two drivers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0003)

## Gwalior Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-2023-0041)

**Record:** CW-2023-0041 (compiler id CWC-1266); case GAP3-80-001
**Title:** Gwalior Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
**Case number / citation:** M.Cr.C. No. 14202 of 2023
**Judgment:** 2023-04-28 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-09-06 (2022)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Gwalior; police station or unit: Police Station Morar, Gwalior; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** NDPS Act s.8/s.22; Arms Act s.25/s.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Morar, Gwalior (1 in record)
**Victims:** Gwalior man, age 26 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. On 6 September 2022, SI of PS Morar claimed to seize 100 gm of MDMA each from a Gwalior man and others (720 gm total), and Tiwari remained in custody in Crime No. 760/2022 under the NDPS and Arms Acts. The CFSL Bhopal report dated 21 October 2022 found no MDMA in any exhibit, only urea, which the State conceded is not covered by the NDPS Act. The court held Tiwari's Article 21 right to personal liberty was violated by the wrongful act of the police agency during nearly eight months of confinement. Alongside bail on a Rs 500 personal bond, it directed the DGP to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation within two months, recoverable from the erring officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Director General of Police is directed to pay a sum of Rs. ten lac to the applicant by way of compensation for his wrongful confinement within a period of two months from today and compliance report to this effect be submitted in the Registry.

**Sources (2):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/mcrc142022023finalorder28-apr-2023digiw-1497900.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/mp-hc-orders-police-to-pay-rs-10-lakh-compensation-to-man-1474795)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Gwalior Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-04-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'M.Cr.C. No. 14202 of 2023', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/mcrc142022023finalorder28-apr-2023digiw-1497900.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/mp-hc-orders-police-to-pay-rs-10-lakh-compensation-to-man-1474795', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** False NDPS seizure (urea, no MDMA); Rs 10L compensation for wrongful confinement.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0041](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0041)

## Biaora Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-2024-0021)

**Record:** CW-2024-0021 (compiler id CWC-0220); case MADHYA-005
**Title:** Biaora Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Indore; judges: Subodh Abhyankar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 483 of 2014 & 505 of 2014 / 2024:MPHC-IND:33084
**Judgment:** 2024-11-21 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-10-14 (2009)
**Place:** Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Biaora; police station or unit: Biaora Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Omprakash Mishra (Assistant Sub-Inspector); Naval Singh Meena (Constable) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Biaora man; Biaora man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Assistant Sub-Inspector Omprakash Mishra and Constable Naval Singh Meena of Biaora Police Station, Rajgarh, were prosecuted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification to release complainant \[name withheld\]'s nephew \[name withheld\] from unlawful police custody. During a Lokayukta trap on October 14, 2009, Mishra accepted Rs. 6,500 in tainted currency, handed it to Constable, and both fled on a motorcycle while brandishing a service revolver at the trap team. The Special Judge, Rajgarh, convicted both under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) dismissed their appeals, holding that the demand and trap were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

> In such circumstances, so far as the demand of bribe is concerned, it stands proved against the appellant \[name withheld\].

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81632470/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3487012/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Biaora Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2024:MPHC-IND:33084', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-11-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2024:MPHC-IND:33084', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81632470/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3487012/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) upheld the PC Act convictions and 2-year sentences of ASI and Constable for bribery and extortion.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0021)

## Jabalpur Man vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (CW-2025-0052)

**Record:** CW-2025-0052 (compiler id CWC-1322); case cop-mp-hc-3
**Title:** Jabalpur Man vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
**Court:** High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench; judges: G.S. Ahluwalia
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 28981 of 2024 / 2025:MPHC-JBP:3856
**Judgment:** 2025-01-28 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-09-20 (2024)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh; police station or unit: Mahila Thana, Jabalpur; Office of Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Article 226; 41A Cr.P.C.
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, Mahila Thana, Jabalpur; Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur (2 in record)
**Victims:** Jabalpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court found that the SHO, Mahila Thana, Jabalpur illegally issued a Look Out Circular against the petitioner without any basis, resulting in his detention at Hyderabad International Airport despite a trial court order permitting him to travel abroad. The Court noted the SHO failed to withdraw the LOC even after the petitioner was granted bail and travel permission, and the SP failed to periodically review the LOC. The SHO was placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry was initiated. The Court strongly deprecated the conduct of the SP who failed to produce departmental enquiry records.

> It is further submitted that after having issued notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. there was no occasion for the SHO, Mahila Thana, Jabalpur, to have an apprehension that petitioner may flee away. Furthermore, after the bail was granted by the Trial Court therefore, the apprehension of fleeing away which might have been in the mind of SHO should have come to an end and thus she should have withdrawn the LOC but that was not done.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158106960/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Jabalpur Man vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-01-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2025:MPHC-JBP:3856', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158106960/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** The summary names the SHO of Mahila Thana, Jabalpur (an officer) in the summary field, which must be removed; Sections field is inaccurate: '226' is Article 226 of the Constitution (the writ jurisdiction, not a penal section) and '439' (bail) is not a section of this case; the relevant cited provisions are Article 226 and Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2025-0052](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0052)

## Deepar Man vs State of M.P. (CW-2025-0002)

**Record:** CW-2025-0002 (compiler id CWC-0224); case MADHYA-009
**Title:** Deepar Man vs State of M.P.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: G. S. Ahluwalia
**Case number / citation:** M.Cr.C. No. 4578 of 2025 / 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289; 2025 SCC OnLine MP 3174
**Judgment:** 2025-04-16 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2017-09-24 (2017)
**Place:** Datia, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Deepar; police station or unit: Deepar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307; IPC 147; IPC 148; IPC 149; IPC 294; IPC 336; CrPC s.482; Constitution of India Article 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police, Datia (DIG Bhopal at time of judgment) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Deepar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

In a Datia murder trial (ST 02/2018, Seondha) over the 2017 killing of Kailash, the trial court had directed preservation of call-detail and mobile-location records on 07.09.2018. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) found that then-SP \[name withheld\] received the records on 17.09.2018 yet deliberately suppressed them, got a false compliance reply filed before the trial court, and acted with mala fide intention to favour one side, violating the fundamental rights of free and fair investigation and trial. The Court directed \[name withheld\] to personally deposit Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation with the Principal Registrar within one month for disbursal by the trial court to the successful party, ordered the DGP to issue a departmental charge sheet within a month, and directed that the order be kept in his service record. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Shri \[name withheld\], the then SP, Datia has tried to violate the fundamental rights of free and fair investigation as well as free and fair trial of atleast one of the parties.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/mcrc45782025finalorder16-04-2025-597099.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-police-suppress-evidence-murder-trial-290237); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/04/19/mp-high-court-slaps-rs-5-lakh-fine-on-digbhopal-for-suppressing-evidence-in-murder-probe-scc-times/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Deepar Man vs State of M.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-04-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2025:MPHC-GWL:8289; 2025 SCC OnLine MP 3174', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/mcrc45782025finalorder16-04-2025-597099.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-police-suppress-evidence-murder-trial-290237', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/04/19/mp-high-court-slaps-rs-5-lakh-fine-on-digbhopal-for-suppressing-evidence-in-murder-probe-scc-times/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** MP HC (Gwalior) held then-SP \[name withheld\] suppressed CDR records with mala fide intent in a murder trial, ordered him to personally deposit Rs 5 lakh compensation and directed DGP to issue DE charge sheet.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0002)

## Guna Man and Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (CW-2025-0051)

**Record:** CW-2025-0051 (compiler id CWC-1321); case cop-mp-hc-1
**Title:** Guna Man and Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3450 of 2025 / 2025 INSC 711
**Judgment:** 2025-05-15 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-07-13 (2024)
**Place:** Guna, Madhya Pradesh; police station or unit: Myana Police Station; Jhagar Chowki; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** 105; 115(2); 3(5); 120; 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act
**Officers (gated display forms):** Town Inspector, Myana Police Station; Police Personnel, Myana Police Station and Jhagar Chowki (2 in record)
**Victims:** Guna man; Guna man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The Supreme Court transferred the investigation into the custodial death of \[name withheld\] to the CBI, directing that police officials found responsible be arrested within one month. The Court found that \[name withheld\] was subjected to brutal third-degree torture including hanging upside down, chilli powder, petrol, salt, and hot water, leading to his death. The sole eyewitness \[name withheld\] was illegally detained for over 24 hours and subsequently implicated in multiple false cases to coerce him. The Court observed that the local police investigation lacked credibility as allegations were against their own personnel, and even the post-mortem appeared influenced.

> The involvement of the police officials in the custodial death of \[name withheld\] is clearly borne out from the statement of the sole eye-witness \[name withheld\] and stands further corroborated during the magisterial inquiry. The victims' family tried to lodge the FIR immediately after the incident, but the local police officials prevented them from doing so. It is only after the magisterial inquiry was conducted that the FIR came to be registered wherein the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder was omitted. Nearly eight months have passed since the FIR was registered but till date, not a single accused has been arrested.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/133860967/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** Guna Man and Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-05-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2025 INSC 711', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/133860967/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2025-0051](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0051)

## Seondha Police Constable and others v. State of M.P. and Others (CW-2025-0046)

**Record:** CW-2025-0046 (compiler id CWC-1270); case GAP3-81-008
**Title:** Seondha Police Constable and others v. State of M.P. and Others
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: Ashish Shroti
**Case number / citation:** WP No. 18398 of 2022 / 2025:MPHC-GWL:20242
**Judgment:** 2025-09-03 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-11-05 (2019)
**Place:** Datia, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Seondha; police station or unit: Police Station Seondha; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** M.P. Police Regulations Reg. 270(4)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Station Seondha, Datia; Constable, Police Station Seondha, Datia (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Constables and \[name withheld\], posted at Police Station Seondha, Datia, were named by villagers as facilitating long-running illegal sand mining and transportation at Mauja Kandarpura, confirmed by a joint SDOP-Mining Officer inspection on 5 November 2019. After suspension and a departmental enquiry, both were removed from service by order dated 2 August 2022. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held the enquiry findings, based on eleven witnesses and the documentary record, were neither perverse nor based on no evidence, noting beat constables could not plausibly be unaware of long-running mining in their beat. The Court held the Regulation 270 revisional removal order legal and justified, upheld it, and dismissed the petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion of facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by respondent no.2 against the petitioners cannot be said to be perverse and based on no evidence.

**Sources (1):** [mphc.gov.in](https://mphc.gov.in/upload/gwalior/MPHCGWL/2022/WP/18398/WP_18398_2022_FinalOrder_03-09-2025.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Seondha Police Constable and others v. State of M.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-09-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2025:MPHC-GWL:20242', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://mphc.gov.in/upload/gwalior/MPHCGWL/2022/WP/18398/WP_18398_2022_FinalOrder_03-09-2025.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Removal of two beat constables for facilitating long-running illegal sand mining upheld; abuse of police position.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0046](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0046)

## Balaghat Man v. State of M.P. (CW-2025-0021)

**Record:** CW-2025-0021 (compiler id CWC-0584); case SWFALSEI-016
**Title:** Balaghat Man v. State of M.P.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Jabalpur; judges: Vivek Agarwal; Avanindra Kumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Reference (Capital) No. 1 of 2024 with Crl.A. Nos. 2969/2024 and 3272/2024 / 2025:MPHC-JBP:49936
**Judgment:** 2025-09-27 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-04-04 (2022)
**Place:** Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh; police station or unit: Balaghat Police (Special Judge POCSO, Waraseoni trial); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 363; IPC 364; IPC 302; IPC 201; POCSO Act s.5M/s.6
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Balaghat — judgment names no IO (1 in record)
**Victims:** Balaghat man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Balaghat man spent about three and a half years on death row after the trial court sentenced him to death for one child's murder and life for the other's in the April 2022 deaths of two minor girls. The High Court set aside the conviction on all charges, holding the investigation motivated and malafide, citing an overwritten section 161 statement date and a last-seen statement recorded only after recoveries and arrest, which destroyed the circumstantial chain. It ordered his forthwith release and awarded Rs 1,00,000 litigation cost from the State, recoverable by the SP from the investigating officer. The court-site PDF was unreachable at verification (certificate error); the operative order is corroborated by the Indian Kanoon listing and two independent press reports. A reported Supreme Court stay on the officer-cost could not be verified. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It appears to be a motivated and malafide investigation, which cannot be given a seal of approval.

**Sources (4):** [mphc.gov.in](https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2024/CRRFC/1/CRRFC_1_2024_FinalOrder_27-09-2025_digi.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48035861/); [bhaskarenglish.in](https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/amp/local/mp/news/mp-crime-files-05-11-2025-hc-overturned-death-sentence-of-man-accused-of-killing-nieces-136339082.html); [bhaskarenglish.in](https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/local/mp/news/madhyapradesh-hc-overturns-death-penalty-says-negligent-police-probe-wrongly-punished-innocent-investigating-officer-fined-1-lakh-135908803.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 55
**display title redacted:** Balaghat Man v. State of M.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers', 'sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-09-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2025:MPHC-JBP:49936', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2024/CRRFC/1/CRRFC_1_2024_FinalOrder_27-09-2025_digi.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48035861/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/amp/local/mp/news/mp-crime-files-05-11-2025-hc-overturned-death-sentence-of-man-accused-of-killing-nieces-136339082.html', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/local/mp/news/madhyapradesh-hc-overturns-death-penalty-says-negligent-police-probe-wrongly-punished-innocent-investigating-officer-fined-1-lakh-135908803.html', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Death-row conviction set aside as motivated probe; Rs 1L to acquitted man, recoverable from IO.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0021)

## Lateri Police Head Constable vs State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-2026-0045)

**Record:** CW-2026-0045 (compiler id CWC-1267); case GAP3-81-001
**Title:** Lateri Police Head Constable vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: Anand Singh Bahrawat
**Case number / citation:** WP No. 1336 of 2008 / 2026:MPHC-GWL:5779
**Judgment:** 2026-02-13 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Lateri; police station or unit: Police Station Anandpur, Lateri, Vidisha; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Station Anandpur, Lateri, Vidisha (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Head Constable, posted at PS Anandpur (Lateri, Vidisha), faced a complaint leading to a fact-finding inquiry, charge-sheet and full departmental enquiry in which the charges were held proved. The SP Vidisha dismissed him on 28 February 2002, the IG rejected his appeal in October 2002, and the State converted dismissal to compulsory retirement in a mercy petition in September 2007. The court held mercy is an act of grace beyond claims of right and the petitioner had no enforceable right to challenge the mercy order. It refused reinstatement and dismissed the petition as bereft of substance; the underlying misconduct charge is not specified in the judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the foregoing discussion and the facts and circumstances of the present case in their entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that when State Government itself has shown mercy to the delinquent by imposing a lesser punishment, the present petition, being bereft of substance, is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/02/19/babulal-deewan-v-state-of-mp-657074.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-dismisses-police-constables-plea-against-compulsory-retirement-says-mercy-is-an-act-of-grace-and-compassion-beyond-claims-of-right-523786)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Lateri Police Head Constable vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-02-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2026:MPHC-GWL:5779', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/02/19/babulal-deewan-v-state-of-mp-657074.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-dismisses-police-constables-plea-against-compulsory-retirement-says-mercy-is-an-act-of-grace-and-compassion-beyond-claims-of-right-523786', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Compulsory retirement (mercy-modified dismissal) after proved charges upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0045](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0045)

## Raghogarh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors (CW-2026-0010)

**Record:** CW-2026-0010 (compiler id CWC-0222); case MADHYA-007; aliases: CWC-1482
**Title:** Raghogarh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: Anand Pathak; Anil Verma
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal No. 516 of 2026 / 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 69
**Judgment:** 2026-02-24 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-05-07 (2011)
**Place:** Guna, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Raghogarh; police station or unit: Police Station Raghogarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 365; IPC 392; IPC 34; Constitution of India Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Raghogarh; Constable, Police Station Raghogarh (2 in record)
**Victims:** Raghogarh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Assistant Sub-Inspector and Constable of Raghogarh Police Station, Guna, along with accomplices, de-boarded complainant \[name withheld\] from the Rajdhani Express at Kota railway station and looted approximately 4 kg of gold. Although the officer was subsequently acquitted by the criminal court due to hostile witnesses, a departmental inquiry found the charges of abduction and robbery proved, leading to his dismissal from service on May 11, 2021. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) dismissed his writ appeal, ruling that acquittal in a criminal case based on benefit of doubt does not bar departmental disciplinary proceedings and that looting and abduction by a police officer fully justified dismissal.

> Therefore, relying upon the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that mere acquittal by Criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising the power to conduct departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules and regulations. Both proceedings; criminal and departmental, are entirely different.

**Sources (4):** [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/pdf_upload/sultan-singh-nagar-v-state-of-mp-2131645.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-dismisses-assistant-sub-inspectors-appeal-against-termination-525278); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/madhya-pradesh-high-court-upholds-dismissal-of-assistant-sub-inspector-in-gold-loot-case-despite-acquittal-1569093); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/banks-guardian-turned-robber-mp-hc-upholds-dismissal-of-police-officer-who-looted-gold-525278)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Raghogarh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-02-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (MP) 69', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/pdf_upload/sultan-singh-nagar-v-state-of-mp-2131645.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-dismisses-assistant-sub-inspectors-appeal-against-termination-525278', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/madhya-pradesh-high-court-upholds-dismissal-of-assistant-sub-inspector-in-gold-loot-case-despite-acquittal-1569093', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/banks-guardian-turned-robber-mp-hc-upholds-dismissal-of-police-officer-who-looted-gold-525278', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) upheld the dismissal of Assistant Sub-Inspector for abducting and looting ~4kg of gold from a passenger.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0010)

## Narsinghpur Police Police Officer vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (CW-2026-0060)

**Record:** CW-2026-0060 (compiler id CWC-1323); case cop-mp-hc-4
**Title:** Narsinghpur Police Police Officer vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
**Court:** High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench; judges: Vivek Rusia; Pradeep Mittal
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 2812 of 2024 / 2026:MPHC-JBP:31111
**Judgment:** 2026-04-21 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-03-22 (2009)
**Place:** Narsinghpur, Madhya Pradesh; police station or unit: Police Station Narsinghpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** 214; 215 M.P. Police Regulations; FR-54
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Officer, Police Station Narsinghpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Narsinghpur resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court upheld a departmental penalty of a fine of Rs.5,000 imposed on a police officer for misconduct in unlawfully detaining a Scorpio vehicle at Police Station Narsinghpur and failing to initiate legal action, despite his acquittal in the parallel criminal trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court held that departmental proceedings are based on a distinct standard of proof and the misconduct relating to unlawful detention of the vehicle and failure to take appropriate action was duly established in the departmental enquiry, justifying the penalty.

> Although the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case, the departmental findings relating to his conduct in stopping a vehicle, detaining it at the police station, and failing to take appropriate legal action were duly established, thereby justifying the imposition of penalty.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85035813/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Narsinghpur Police Police Officer vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-04-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'disciplinary upheld', 'source': '2026:MPHC-JBP:31111', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85035813/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** The sentence field inaccurately states the dismissal period was 'treated as no work, no pay'; per the judgment, the fine of Rs 5,000 was upheld (substituted for the dismissal) but the treatment of the dismissal period was REMITTED for fresh consideration under FR-54, not finally decided
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0060](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0060)

## Indore Man vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (CW-2026-0017)

**Record:** CW-2026-0017 (compiler id CWC-0230); case MADHYA-004
**Title:** Indore Man vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Indore; judges: Subodh Abhyankar
**Case number / citation:** WP No. 55 of 2026
**Judgment:** 2026-04-22 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-12-29 (2025)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Indore; police station or unit: Lasudiya Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (2 in record)
**Victims:** Indore man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. In the early hours of 29.12.2025 the petitioner was picked up after a minor restaurant altercation in Indore, beaten by constables and \[name withheld\], and assaulted further inside Lasudiya Police Station in an area without CCTV coverage. The State denied assault and claimed the petitioner was taken to a camera-blind room used by women officers. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) held the missing visuals were not natural and drew an adverse inference against the delinquent officers, corroborated by injury photographs and witness statements, and awarded Rs. 10,000 compensation for the hardship. The Court also directed preservation of records and systemic CCTV and body-worn-camera measures for Indore police stations. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court is of the considered opinion that non-availability of such visuals of an incident which took place near and also in the police station, is not natural and is enough to draw an adverse inference against the delinquent officers, which also substantiates the narration of events by the petitioner supported by the photographs of the injuries. It is also found that the statements of the petitioner's friends were also recorded in the brief enquiry, who have also admitted that the petitioner was assaulted by the police personnel.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122291996/); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/madhya-pradesh-high-court-pulls-up-state-over-cctv-lapses-directs-compensation-in-custodial-violence-case-1586259); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-indore-police-commissionerate-police-atrocities-cases-532214); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/30/harsh-v-state-of-mp-2165885.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Indore Man vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-04-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'WP No. 55 of 2026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122291996/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/madhya-pradesh-high-court-pulls-up-state-over-cctv-lapses-directs-compensation-in-custodial-violence-case-1586259', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-indore-police-commissionerate-police-atrocities-cases-532214', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/30/harsh-v-state-of-mp-2165885.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** MP High Court (Indore) drew an adverse inference from missing CCTV footage, held custodial assault at Lasudiya police station established, and awarded Rs 10,000 compensation plus CCTV/body-camera directions.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0017)

## Indore Man and Others vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (CW-2026-0059)

**Record:** CW-2026-0059 (compiler id CWC-1320); case cop-mp-hc-0
**Title:** Indore Man and Others vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
**Court:** High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench; judges: Gajendra Singh
**Case number / citation:** CRR No. 258 of 2026 / 2026:MPHC-IND:15546
**Judgment:** 2026-06-16 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2015-12-19 (2015)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh; police station or unit: Police Station MIG, Indore; CID Headquarters, Bhopal; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** 306; 342; 193; 32; 176; 173; 197
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Station MIG, Indore; Constable, Police Station MIG, Indore; Inspector, Police Station MIG, Indore (3 in record)
**Victims:** Indore man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by three police officers challenging the trial court's rejection of their claim for sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The Court held that the officers subjected the deceased \[name withheld\] to physical assault and mental torture while in custody at Police Station MIG, Indore, leading to his death, and subsequently attempted to cover up the incident by failing to record his custody in the Roznamcha and making false CCTNS entries. The Court affirmed that the 'reasonable nexus' test for Section 197 protection was not satisfied as the alleged acts were not in discharge of official duty.

> The above incident is not a result where revision petitioners were performing the duty to handle the violent mob and were justified in using the criminal force and exceeded their scope of use of force but it is a case where alleged use of force is when the deceased was in custody of the police in police station and there was no occasion to exercise the use of force or physical assault followed by various acts to cover up the incident.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47171834/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Indore Man and Others vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-06-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2026:MPHC-IND:15546', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47171834/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0059](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0059)

## Ravindra Singh Gurjar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (CW-2026-0028)

**Record:** CW-2026-0028 (compiler id CWC-0231); case MADHYA-005
**Title:** Ravindra Singh Gurjar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Indore; judges: Jai Kumar Pillai
**Case number / citation:** WP No. 45186 of 2025 / 2026:MPHC-IND:16427; 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 230
**Judgment:** 2026-06-23 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2023-06-15 (2023)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Indore; police station or unit: Vijay Nagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 226; JJ Act 2015
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ravindra Singh Gurjar (Inspector (SHO)); Sub-Inspector, Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore (1 in record)
**Victims:** Indore boy, age 16 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

On 15.06.2023, while Inspector Ravindra Singh Gurjar was SHO of Vijay Nagar Police Station, Indore, four youths picked up over suspected gambling were kept at the station; the santari register recorded a 16-year-old boy as aged 16, yet he was illegally detained past midnight and released only after subordinates took Rs. 10,000 from the families. A departmental enquiry proved supervisory negligence and Juvenile violations, leading to a major penalty of demotion to Sub-Inspector for three years, confirmed in appeal and revision. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) dismissed his writ petition, holding the enquiry fair, the charges fully supported, and the demotion proportionate to his command responsibility. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Looking at the overall facts and the settled law, this Court finds that the departmental enquiry was conducted fairly. The charges of negligence are fully supported by the preliminary inquiry report, and the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/24/ravindra-singh-gurjar-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-682111.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/mp-police-sho-demotion-upheld-negligence-illegal-custodial-detention-of-minor-538836)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 39
**display title redacted:** Ravindra Singh Gurjar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-06-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2026:MPHC-IND:16427; 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 230', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/24/ravindra-singh-gurjar-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-682111.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/mp-police-sho-demotion-upheld-negligence-illegal-custodial-detention-of-minor-538836', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** MP High Court (Indore) dismissed Inspector's writ, upholding his 3-year demotion to Sub-Inspector for command failure over the illegal night detention of a 16-year-old and Rs 10,000 staff gratification.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 16, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 16-year-old boy'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0028)

## District Police Constable (Driver) vs State of Madhya Pradesh (CW-2026-0051)

**Record:** CW-2026-0051 (compiler id CWC-1268); case GAP3-81-002
**Title:** District Police Constable (Driver) vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: Deepak Khot
**Case number / citation:** WP No. 10511 of 2019 / 2026:MPHC-JBP:50818
**Judgment:** 2026-07-10 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2018-04-23 (2018)
**Place:** Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Burhanpur; police station or unit: District Police, Burhanpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 147; IPC 148; IPC 149; IPC 294; IPC 332; IPC 333; IPC 341; IPC 353; IPC 506-B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (Driver), District Police, Burhanpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. \[name withheld\] was selected as Constable (Driver) in Burhanpur and disclosed a criminal case in his attestation form, but his affidavit dated 23 April 2018 suppressed that his acquittal in the rioting/brick-pelting case was on benefit of doubt rather than honourable. The screening committee held him unsuitable for service and he was removed in November 2018; the departmental appeal was dismissed in November 2019. Applying the Avtar Singh objective test, the court held partial disclosure with suppression of the non-honourable acquittal amounts to moral turpitude under the State instructions. It held removal proportionate for a member of a disciplined force and dismissed the petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The authority considering the same has found that such suppression in regard to acquittal does not fall within the category of clean or honourable acquittal and therefore, it is not expected from the member of the disciplined force to show such conduct and character to be a part of the said force.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/17/santosh-solanki-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-687437.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-service-law-man-acquitted-of-brick-pelting-not-qualified-for-police-force-541706)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** District Police Constable (Driver) vs State of Madhya Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-07-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2026:MPHC-JBP:50818', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/17/santosh-solanki-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-687437.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-service-law-man-acquitted-of-brick-pelting-not-qualified-for-police-force-541706', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Removal for suppressing non-honourable acquittal in attestation upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0051](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0051)

## Kailaras Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors (CW-2026-0032)

**Record:** CW-2026-0032 (compiler id CWC-0223); case MADHYA-008; aliases: CWC-1434
**Title:** Kailaras Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Gwalior; judges: Milind Ramesh Phadke
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 11135 of 2025 / 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 305
**Judgment:** 2026-07-28 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-02-12 (2025)
**Place:** Morena, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Kailaras; police station or unit: Kailaras Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Article 21; Constitution of India Article 226; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 s.308(7); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 s.3(5); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 s.47(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Kailaras Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kailaras man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Petitioner a Kailaras man, a serving police constable, was arrested by the Station House Officer of Kailaras Police Station, Morena, in connection with a bailable offence under Sections 308(7) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Despite the petitioner being entitled to bail and willing to furnish sureties, the police failed to inform him of his statutory rights under Section 47(2) BNSS and kept him detained in the police lock-up for over 24 hours until his production before a Magistrate. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) declared the arrest and detention unlawful and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, awarding Rs. 5,00,000 as public law compensation to be paid by the State with liberty to recover the sum from the delinquent officer. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case, this Court finds that respondent No.4 failed to adhere to the mandatory statutory procedure governing arrest in a bailable offence. The petitioner was illegally deprived of his liberty without authority of law. Such action constitutes a clear infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/31/rahul-ataria-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-690703.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-grants-compensation-for-illegal-detention-of-police-constable-543779); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/police-cannot-detain-accused-in-bailable-offence-without-informing-him-of-bail-right-mp-high-court-1618931)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Kailaras Man vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-07-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (MP) 305', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/31/rahul-ataria-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-690703.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-grants-compensation-for-illegal-detention-of-police-constable-543779', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/police-cannot-detain-accused-in-bailable-offence-without-informing-him-of-bail-right-mp-high-court-1618931', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) awarded Rs. 5 lakh compensation for the illegal police detention of a constable in a bailable offence.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0032)

## Jabalpur Man vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (CW-2026-0100)

**Record:** CW-2026-0100 (compiler id CWC-1390)
**Title:** Jabalpur Man vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; bench: Jabalpur; judges: Vivek Agarwal; Avanindra Kumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 2985 of 2026 with Writ Petition No. 2986 of 2026 / 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
**Judgment:** 2026-09-11 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-01-06 (2026)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh; city town: Jabalpur; police station or unit: City Superintendent of Police, Gohalpur Division, Jabalpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980; Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India
**Officers (gated display forms):** City Superintendent of Police, Gohalpur Division, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh Police; Additional Superintendent of Police (City), Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh Police; Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Jabalpur man; Jabalpur man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

Two brothers in Jabalpur were detained under the National Security Act by the District Magistrate's order of 6.1.2026, after a country-made bomb explosion on 4.1.2026 that police attributed to one of them; the detention was extended on 1.4.2026 and 6.7.2026. The High Court found that the City Superintendent of Police, Gohalpur, listed fourteen cases as pending trial when the petitioner had been acquitted in eleven of them, some as far back as 2004, and that the report went from the CSP to the Additional SP, the SP and the District Magistrate on the same day. It held that this incorrect supply of data, its mechanical forwarding and the District Magistrate's reliance on it without verification vitiated the detention, which could have been checked on CCTNS 'with the slightest of efforts'. The court also recorded that the SP had issued a show-cause notice to a sub-inspector over manipulation of CCTV footage of 4.1.2026. The detention orders were set aside on 11.09.2026.

> this lacuna of non-application of mind, arising out of the incorrect supply of data by the concerned City Superintendent of Police, Gohalpur, District Jabalpur, and its mechanical forwarding by the Additional Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, coupled with the District Magistrate's blatant reliance upon such data without seeking its verification, vitiates the impugned order of detention.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102960373/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/22/rajendra-thakur-v-state-of-mp-701658.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-sets-aside-nsa-detention-order-over-incorrect-criminal-antecedents-551185)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Court finding', 'position_explainer': 'A court has made a finding on this allegation.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Jabalpur Man vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-27', 'scope': 'Past-days sweep (25-27 Sep): record written from the full order on Indian Kanoon; quote checked verbatim; judgment date is 11.09.2026 (reported 22.09.2026). Detainees are not named.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the NSA detention order of 6.1.2026 against both brothers, finding non-application of mind caused by incorrect criminal-history data supplied by police.', 'disposition': 'Adverse finding (preventive detention vitiated by incorrect police data) · detention set aside', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 2985 of 2026 with Writ Petition No. 2986 of 2026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-27
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102960373/', 'link_checked': '2026-09-27'}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/22/rajendra-thakur-v-state-of-mp-701658.pdf', 'link_checked': '2026-09-27'}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-sets-aside-nsa-detention-order-over-incorrect-criminal-antecedents-551185', 'link_checked': '2026-09-27'}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Checked against the full common order dated 11.09.2026 (Indian Kanoon; neutral citation 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034). LiveLaw's PDF copy stops at page 8, before the operative paragraphs; the Indian Kanoon text includes paras 21-30. The bomb allegation is the State's case and is still under investigation (Crime No. 19/2026); the court made no finding on it.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0100](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0100)

## The State v. Satara Police Police Patil (CW-1955-0001)

**Record:** CW-1955-0001 (compiler id CWC-1128); case GAP3-19-002
**Title:** The State v. Satara Police Police Patil
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Vyas; Shah
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 1955 / (1956) 58 BomLR 355
**Judgment:** 1955-12-02 (1955, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Satara, Maharashtra (district at time: North Satara); city town: Satara; police station or unit: Police Patil, North Satara; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 161
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Patil, North Satara (1 in record)
**Victims:** Satara resident; Satara resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 0.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Police Patil Shamrao Patil demanded and received Rs.25 for issuing a solvency certificate for use in criminal proceedings. The Special Judge, North Satara, accepted the payment was proved but acquitted on the ground that issuing the certificate was no part of a Police Patil's duty and hence no official act. The High Court held an official act under IPC s.161 need only be done in official capacity, not be an obligatory duty, and issuing the certificate as Patil qualified. It allowed the State appeal, convicted the accused under s.161 IPC, and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment with an arrest warrant.

> Having regard to the evidence, we convict the accused of an offence under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and direct that the accused do suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/790522/the-state-vs-shamrao-navji-patil/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/829935/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** The State v. Satara Police Police Patil
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1955-12-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1956) 58 BomLR 355', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/790522/the-state-vs-shamrao-navji-patil/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/829935/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC judgment verified; Police Patil acquittal reversed and bribery conviction entered (conviction_by_hc).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-1955-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1955-0001)

## \[name withheld\] v. M.M. Chudasama (CW-1956-0001)

**Record:** CW-1956-0001 (compiler id CWC-1130); case GAP3-19-004
**Title:** \[name withheld\] v. M.M. Chudasama
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Chagla, C.J.; Dixit, J.
**Case number / citation:** Special Civil Application No. 1484 of 1955 / AIR 1956 Bom 545
**Judgment:** 1956-01-17 (1956, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1950-01-01 (1950)
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra (district at time: Bombay City); city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Bombay City Police Force; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Police Act 1861 s.7; Police Act 1861 s.25; Constitution Art.226; Constitution Art.227; Constitution Art.311
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bombay City Police Force (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Bombay High Court declined to interfere with the dismissal of constable of the Bombay City Police Force, who faced departmental charges arising from a 1950 corruption investigation. The court found he had been heard in full by every authority bound to hear his defence and that setting aside the third dismissal order (23 June 1955) could make a fresh preliminary inquiry impossible with witnesses unavailable. It additionally held the writ petition premature since the statutory appeal to the State Government had not been exhausted. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs, leaving the dismissal intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The result is that there will be no order on the petition. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1695633/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/810915/sayed-kassam-ibrahim-vs-mm-chudasama/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/350523/sayed-kassam-ibrahim-vs-m-m-chudasama)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] v. M.M. Chudasama
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1956-01-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1956 Bom 545', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1695633/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/810915/sayed-kassam-ibrahim-vs-mm-chudasama/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/350523/sayed-kassam-ibrahim-vs-m-m-chudasama', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC left corruption-related dismissal intact; rule discharged.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1956-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1956-0001)

## State v. Rahata Police Constable and Anr. (CW-1958-0004)

**Record:** CW-1958-0004 (compiler id CWC-1133); case GAP3-19-007
**Title:** State v. Rahata Police Constable and Anr.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Shah, J.
**Case number / citation:** State appeal against acquittal in Corruption Case No. 1 of 1958 (Special Judge, Ahmednagar) / AIR 1959 Bom 543; (1959) 61 BomLR 837; 1959 CriLJ 1421
**Judgment:** 1958-12-04 (1958, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1957-09-30 (1957)
**Place:** Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra (district at time: Ahmednagar); city town: Rahata; police station or unit: Rahata; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 161; IPC 165A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Rahata, Ahmednagar district (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rahata man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 0.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Bombay High Court allowed the State appeal against acquittal and reversed the Special Judge's acquittals in a bribery case where constable of Rahata acted as conduit for a Rs. 400 bribe demand on behalf of his father-in-law, the Special Executive Magistrate. The court held the Special Judge failed to examine the proved facts in the context of the statutory presumption and convicted the constable under s.165A IPC (6 months rigorous imprisonment) and the Magistrate under s.161 IPC (9 months RI plus Rs. 500 fine). It issued warrants for the arrest of both accused. The bribe was demanded at the Korhale fair on 30 September 1957 for an acquittal in chapter proceedings against a Rahata man Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We also convict the second accused for the offence under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/625705/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** State v. Rahata Police Constable and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1958-12-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1959 Bom 543; (1959) 61 BomLR 837; 1959 CriLJ 1421', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/625705/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC reversed acquittal; convicted constable u/s 165A IPC.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-1958-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1958-0004)

## Nawapur Police Constable v. The State of Maharashtra (CW-1971-0001)

**Record:** CW-1971-0001 (compiler id CWC-1131); case GAP3-19-005
**Title:** Nawapur Police Constable v. The State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Deshpande, J.
**Case number / citation:** Second Appeal (citation (1972) 74 BomLR 304) / (1972) 74 BomLR 304; 1972 LIC 1453
**Judgment:** 1971-08-31 (1971, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1958-04-14 (1958)
**Place:** Nandurbar, Maharashtra (district at time: Dhulia); city town: Nawapur; police station or unit: Nawapur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; Bombay Police Manual R.445; Constitution Art.311
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Nawapur Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Nawapur resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Bombay High Court sustained the dismissal of constable, caught in an Anti-Corruption trap accepting a Rs. 5 bribe at Nawapur on 14 April 1958, even though he had been acquitted in the criminal trial under s.161 IPC. The court held that a criminal acquittal does not bind the departmental authority where proceedings rest on the same facts, and that the domestic tribunal's finding could not be struck down as based on no evidence. It sustained the lower appellate decree reversing the trial court's decree in the constable's favour. The second appeal failed and the dismissal stood, with the appellant directed to pay court-fees.

> Result is that the appeal fails. As the appeal was allowed to be filed in forma pauperis, the appellant is directed to pay Court-fees. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to other costs.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199362/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f976e4b0149711144f40)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Nawapur Police Constable v. The State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1971-08-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1972) 74 BomLR 304; 1972 LIC 1453', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199362/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f976e4b0149711144f40', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC sustained bribe-related dismissal despite criminal acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1971-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1971-0001)

## State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (CW-1990-0002)

**Record:** CW-1990-0002 (compiler id CWC-0480); case SWCUSTOD-010
**Title:** State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: A.M. Ahmadi; M. Fathima Beevi
**Case number / citation:** (1990) 1 SCC 550; AIR 1990 SC 658
**Judgment:** 1990-01-18 (1990, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1981-08-22 (1981)
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra; city town: Nagpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** IPC 376
**Officers (gated display forms):** Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Nagpur woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court allowed the State appeal, set aside the Bombay High Court acquittal and restored the trial court's conviction of Sub-Inspector for raping newly-wed the complainant twice after isolating her from her husband on the night of 22 August 1981. The Court held a prosecutrix is a victim, not an accomplice, needing no corroboration, and refused to reduce the 5-year RI sentence, observing that punishment for rape by a person in uniform must be exemplary. The respondent was ordered to surrender forthwith and serve out the sentence. The trial acquittal under Section 342 was not disturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court acquitting the respondent and restore the order of conviction and sentence passed on the respondent by the trial court.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199575/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**display title redacted:** State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1990-01-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1990) 1 SCC 550; AIR 1990 SC 658', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199575/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC set aside HC acquittal; restored 376 conviction (5 yrs RI + fine).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'the complainant'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-1990-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1990-0002)

## State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (CW-1990-0005)

**Record:** CW-1990-0005 (compiler id CWC-0475); case SWCUSTOD-003
**Title:** State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. Jagannatha Shetty; A.M. Ahmadi
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 424 of 1977 / (1991) 1 SCC 57; AIR 1991 SC 207
**Judgment:** 1990-10-23 (1990, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1965-11-13 (1965)
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra (district at time: Thana); city town: Bhiwandi; police station or unit: Bhiwandi Town PS; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (Police Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bhiwandi woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court order and restored the removal from service of Police Inspector, who in uniform visited the survivor's hutment near Bhiwandi Town PS on 13 November 1965, demanded sexual intercourse and tried to take her by force. The Court rejected the High Court's approach of disbelieving the woman as unchaste, holding her evidence was corroborated by her husband, PSI and the police party. The departmental finding of perverse conduct was upheld. Salary paid for duty rendered during the High Court-ordered reinstatement was not made recoverable. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For the above reasons we set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order of removal from service passed by the appellate authority and direct that it be given effect to in accordance with law.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/524900/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/state-of-maharashtra-v.-madhukar-narayan-mardikar:-upholding-police-integrity-and-accountability/view)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1990-10-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1991) 1 SCC 57; AIR 1991 SC 207', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/524900/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/state-of-maharashtra-v.-madhukar-narayan-mardikar:-upholding-police-integrity-and-accountability/view', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC set aside HC order and restored Inspector's removal from service.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1990-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1990-0005)

## Mandrup Police Sub-Inspector of Police (Police Station Officer) v. State of Maharashtra (CW-1991-0003)

**Record:** CW-1991-0003 (compiler id CWC-1127); case GAP3-19-001
**Title:** Mandrup Police Sub-Inspector of Police (Police Station Officer) v. State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: D. J. Moharir
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 1987 / (1991) 1 BomCR 486 : (1991) CriLJ 2085
**Judgment:** 1991-01-15 (1991, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1986-10-03 (1986)
**Place:** Solapur, Maharashtra; city town: Mandrup; police station or unit: Mandrup Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d) r/w s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police (Police Station Officer), Mandrup Police Station, Solapur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mandrup resident; Mandrup resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. PSI, Police Station Officer at Mandrup, detained a fodder-laden tractor-trolley and demanded Rs.300 from its owner to release it, saying no hafta was being paid. The owner approached the Anti-Corruption Branch, which laid a trap with marked currency on 3 October 1986 and caught the PSI accepting the money. The Court held detention unnecessary and a facade to extract money, and demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt. It dismissed the appeal, confirmed one year's RI plus fine under IPC s.161 and 18 months' RI plus fine under the PC Act 1947, and ordered surrender by 15 February 1991.

> The commission of offence under section 161 and S. 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 was thus rightly held established by the trial Court and on appeal here this Court must also unhesitatingly confirm the same.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1409007/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/805457/abhimanyu-vithalrao-jadhav-appellant-hash-state-of-maharashtra-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** Mandrup Police Sub-Inspector of Police (Police Station Officer) v. State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1991) 1 BomCR 486 : (1991) CriLJ 2085', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1991-01-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(1991) 1 BomCR 486 : (1991) CriLJ 2085', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1409007/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/805457/abhimanyu-vithalrao-jadhav-appellant-hash-state-of-maharashtra-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC judgment verified; PSI bribery conviction and 18-month sentence confirmed (conviction_upheld).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1991-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1991-0003)

## State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs Solapur Man (CW-1991-0001)

**Record:** CW-1991-0001 (compiler id CWC-0234); case MAHARA-001
**Title:** State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs Solapur Man
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. Jayachandra Reddy
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 1990 / (1991) 2 SCC 373
**Judgment:** 1991-03-19 (1991, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-08-17 (1989)
**Place:** Solapur, Maharashtra (district at time: Sholapur); city town: Solapur; police station or unit: Faujdar Chavdi Police Station, Sholapur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Faujdar Chavadi Police Station, Sholapur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Solapur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** Rs 10,000

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Undertrial prisoner Ravikant Patil, arrested in Karnataka in a murder investigation, was handcuffed with both arms tied by rope and paraded through the main squares of Sholapur on 17.8.1989, after a local paper announced the parade. The Bombay High Court held Inspector had subjected the undertrial to unwarranted humiliation and indignity violating Article 21, awarded Rs 10,000 compensation against the officer personally, and directed an adverse service-record entry. The Supreme Court agreed the Inspector's explanation was wholly unacceptable and sustained the compensation, but held the officer acted in official capacity so the State of Maharashtra must pay, as in Rudul Sah. It left open a departmental inquiry into further action against the officer after hearing him.

> The High Court elaborately dealt with this aspect and held that the explanation given by the Inspector of Police is wholly unacceptable.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1543073/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/675092/state-of-maharashtra-and-others-appellant-hash-ravikant-s-patil-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs Solapur Man
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1991-03-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1991) 2 SCC 373', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1543073/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/675092/state-of-maharashtra-and-others-appellant-hash-ravikant-s-patil-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary source verified: Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court's finding that Inspector violated undertrial Ravikant Patil's Article 21 rights by handcuffing him, tying his arms with rope and parading him through Sholapur city on 17.8.1989, sustaining Rs 10,000 compensation but shifting liability from the officer personally to the State of Maharashtra, and modifying the adverse service-entry direction to require hearing the officer first. Accused is police; outcome adverse_finding_compensation confirmed. Subcategory kept as 'other' (degrading handcuff/parade, not custodial torture).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1991-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1991-0001)

## Sham Kant v. State of Maharashtra (CW-1992-0002)

**Record:** CW-1992-0002 (compiler id CWC-0353); case SUPREM-041
**Title:** Sham Kant v. State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. R. Pandian; K. Jayachandra Reddy
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal arising from Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1982 / 1992 Supp (2) SCC 521; AIR 1992 SC 1879
**Judgment:** 1992-02-15 (1992, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-06-25 (1980)
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra; city town: Ramtek; police station or unit: Ramtek Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 330
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sham Kant (Acting Sub-Inspector (Station House Officer)) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ramtek man; Ramtek man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.75 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of acting Sub-Inspector Sham Kant, Station House Officer of Ramtek, and confirmed his conviction under Section 330 IPC for torturing temple-theft suspects a Ramtek man and a Ramtek man in police custody between 25 June and 1 July 1980. The Court accepted the survivor's account of stripping, beatings and sexual torture with an iron rod, corroborated by jail and medical records, after which a Ramtek man died of complications from 23 injuries. It rejected the challenge to the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal and its dismissal of a clean-chit inquiry commission report. The Court confirmed the sentence of nine months' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs. 2,000 fine, observing it was very lenient. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> After carefully scanning through the evidence of PW 2, 7, 13.19, 20, 23, 25, 29 and the various documents Exts.21, 22 and 34, we have no reservation in coming to the conclusion that a Ramtek man and a Ramtek man were subjected to ill-treatment by the appellant in order to extort a confession or any information leading to the detection of the stolen properties.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1456974/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48cc9607dba348ffeecdc); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/675681/sham-kant-appellant-hash-state-of-maharashtra-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** Sham Kant v. State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1992 Supp (2) SCC 521; AIR 1992 SC 1879', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1992-02-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '1992 Supp (2) SCC 521; AIR 1992 SC 1879', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1456974/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48cc9607dba348ffeecdc', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/675681/sham-kant-appellant-hash-state-of-maharashtra-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified via alternate sources after 429; s.330 conviction of SHO confirmed, sentence called very lenient.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1992-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1992-0002)

## Sudhakar Bhaskar Pore vs The State Of Maharashtra (CW-1992-0003)

**Record:** CW-1992-0003 (compiler id CWC-0545); case SWEXTORT-010
**Title:** Sudhakar Bhaskar Pore vs The State Of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: D.J. Moharir
**Case number / citation:** 1993 (3) Bom CR 482
**Judgment:** 1992-02-26 (1992, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-09-10 (1980)
**Place:** Raigad, Maharashtra; city town: Kolad; police station or unit: Kolad police outpost, Police Station Roha; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d); PC Act 1947 s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sudhakar Bhaskar Pore (Head Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kolad man; Kolad man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Head Constable, posted at Kolad outpost under PS Roha, was entrusted with an Essential Commodities case against grocer a Kolad man and threatened to arrest, handcuff and parade him 15 km to Roha unless paid. He extracted Rs.80 on 10 September 1980 and Rs.25 of a further Rs.100 demand on 15 September 1980, and was caught in an ACB Alibag trap on 17 September 1980 accepting the balance Rs.75. The trial court convicted him under s.161 IPC and ss.5(1)(d)/5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 with one-year concurrent RI sentences. The Bombay High Court held the squeezing of money was a gross abuse of police authority, confirmed the convictions, and dismissed the appeal.

> Aware that a Kolad man and his brother or family members would abhore a Kolad man being hand-cuffed and paraded in hand-cuffs all the way from Kolad to Roha, the accused took the opportunity of squeezing them to pay bribe to him.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1988488/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 30
**display title redacted:** Sudhakar Bhaskar Pore vs The State Of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1993 (3) Bom CR 482', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1992-02-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '1993 (3) Bom CR 482', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1988488/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC confirmed head constable's 1-year RI bribe conviction; trap and abuse of authority proved.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1992-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1992-0003)

## Nagpur Man vs Government of Maharashtra and Another (CW-1994-0005)

**Record:** CW-1994-0005 (compiler id CWC-0701); case GAP4-002
**Title:** Nagpur Man vs Government of Maharashtra and Another
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 204 of 1993 / 1995 Cri LJ 4223; 1996(1) Bom CR 70; 1994(2) Mh LJ 1769
**Judgment:** 1994-08-26 (1994, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-06-24 (1993)
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra; city town: Nagpur; police station or unit: Crime Branch, Nagpur City; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304; IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Nagpur City; Assistant Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Nagpur City; Police Sub-Inspector, Crime Branch, Nagpur City; Head Constable, Crime Branch, Nagpur City; Head Constable, Crime Branch, Nagpur City; Head Constable, Crime Branch, Nagpur City; Head Constable, Crime Branch, Nagpur City; Police Constable, Crime Branch, Nagpur City; Police Constable, Crime Branch, Nagpur City (9 in record)
**Victims:** Nagpur man, age 32 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. In the night of 23/24 June 1993 a ten-member Crime Branch party led by PI \[name withheld\] dragged a Nagpur man, a 32-year-old railway khalasi, from his Ajni Railway quarters residence, beat him near his house and again in the police lock-up, where he died in the early hours of 24 June. His wife \[name withheld\] alleged she was illegally detained, assaulted and molested by the same personnel, and that the CID registered only Section 304 IPC instead of murder. The Nagpur Bench held a Nagpur man died of custodial violence by the police party and awarded Rs. 1,50,000 compensation to the widow recoverable proportionately from the erring officials. It also ordered an enquiry into the investigating officer's lapses and issued statewide custodial-safeguard directions; the later Supreme Court appeal challenged only parts of the guidelines, not the compensation.

> The State Government is directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2 Jarina wd/o a Nagpur man in this proceeding for the custodial death of her husband.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/432679/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ade7e4b0149711412805); [lawfoyer.in](https://lawfoyer.in/christian-community-welfare-council-of-india-v-government-of-maharashtra/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** Nagpur Man vs Government of Maharashtra and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1994-08-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1995 Cri LJ 4223; 1996(1) Bom CR 70; 1994(2) Mh LJ 1769', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/432679/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ade7e4b0149711412805', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawfoyer.in/christian-community-welfare-council-of-india-v-government-of-maharashtra/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Citation, court, date and Rs. 1.5 lakh award cross-verified via indexed text and SC appeal record (primary fetch 429).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1994-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1994-0005)

## Shahapur Woman vs The State of Maharashtra and Another (CW-1998-0006)

**Record:** CW-1998-0006 (compiler id CWC-0702); case GAP4-001
**Title:** Shahapur Woman vs The State of Maharashtra and Another
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: A.P. Shah; S.S. Parkar
**Case number / citation:** 1998 Cri LJ 1505; 1998(2) Mh LJ 410; (1999) 1 Bom LR 449
**Judgment:** 1998-01-15 (1998, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-06-16 (1997)
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra; city town: Shahapur; police station or unit: Shahapur Police Station / Vasind Outpost, Thane; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 306; IPC 323; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Shahapur Police Station, Thane; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Vasind Outpost, Shahapur Police Station; Police Constable, Shahapur Police Station, Thane (3 in record)
**Victims:** Shahapur man, age 21 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. A Shahapur man, aged 21, was arrested on 10 June 1997 in a robbery case and remanded to police custody, where his wife alleged he was subjected to third-degree torture from 11 to 16 June 1997 until he died on the night of 16 June. Police claimed he strangled himself with a floor mat, but a second post-mortem ordered by the JMFC contradicted suicide, and the State's affidavit almost conceded torture in custody. Offences under Sections 330, 306 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC were registered against the three named officers. The Court held the death a custodial death caused by police torture, awarded Rs. 1,50,000 compensation plus Rs. 10,000 costs recoverable from the erring officials, and directed their suspension pending criminal trial or departmental enquiry.

> In the affidavit it has been almost conceded that the deceased was tortured while in the police custody.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1172230/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Shahapur Woman vs The State of Maharashtra and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1998-01-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1998 Cri LJ 1505; 1998(2) Mh LJ 410; (1999) 1 Bom LR 449', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1172230/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; custodial torture death held proved, Rs. 1.5 lakh plus suspension of 3 officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1998-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1998-0006)

## Kalyan Man vs Special Executive Magistrate, Kalyan (CW-1999-0009)

**Record:** CW-1999-0009 (compiler id CWC-0703); case SWILLEGA-091
**Title:** Kalyan Man vs Special Executive Magistrate, Kalyan
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: D.G. Deshpande
**Case number / citation:** 1999(5) Bom CR 726; 1999 Cri LJ 2676
**Judgment:** 1999-03-24 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-07-16 (1998)
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra; city town: Kalyan; police station or unit: Bazarpeth Police Station, Kalyan; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 41(2); CrPC 110; CrPC 151
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Bazarpeth Police Station, Kalyan (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kalyan man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The petitioner, a prosecution witness in two murder cases, was repeatedly arrested by Bazarpeth police at the instance of the convict Mhatre family; two earlier Section 151(3) arrests in February and April 1998 ended in immediate release by the Judicial Magistrate. He was arrested again on 16 July 1998 under Section 41(2) with Section 110(e)(g) chapter proceedings on stale April-1998 statements, with no emergency, and jailed from 17 July to 10 August 1998 on interim-bond failure. The Court held the arrest totally illegal and uncalled for, quashed the chapter proceedings, and awarded Rs. 3,000 compensation plus Rs. 1,000 costs jointly and severally against the Sub-Inspector (sued individually) and the Special Executive Magistrate, excluding the post-17 July jail period since the family could have furnished the interim bond. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The arrest of the petitioner on 16-7-1998 under the aforesaid provisions was totally illegal and uncalled for and so also the initiation of proceedings under section 110(e) and (g).

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1779514/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 32
**display title redacted:** Kalyan Man vs Special Executive Magistrate, Kalyan
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1999-03-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 3,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1999(5) Bom CR 726; 1999 Cri LJ 2676', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1779514/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; 4th mala fide arrest held totally illegal, chapter proceedings quashed with compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1999-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0009)

## Mumbai Police Police Officer and others vs State of Maharashtra (CW-1999-0010)

**Record:** CW-1999-0010 (compiler id CWC-0704); case GAP4-004
**Title:** Mumbai Police Police Officer and others vs State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: D.G. Deshpande
**Case number / citation:** 2000(5) Bom CR 410
**Judgment:** 1999-09-18 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-06-27 (1990)
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 304
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Officer, Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai; Police Officer, Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai; Police Officer, Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai; Police Officer, Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai; Police Officer, Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai; Police Officer, Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai; Police Officer, Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai (7 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man, age 26 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. A Mumbai man, aged about 26, was tortured through the night of 27/28 June 1990 in the kachcha lock-up of Oshiwara Police Station by seven police officers, witnessed by co-detainees, and died of the injuries after admission to Bhagwati Hospital. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay acquitted the officers of culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC but convicted all seven under Section 330 IPC (3 years' RI for accused no. 1, 2 years' RI plus fine for the rest). The defence was total denial with a claim that kidnappers had assaulted Raju. The High Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining and confirming the convictions and sentences, remarking that the State should have appealed the Section 304 acquittal, and directed surrender within four weeks.

> The appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court against all the accused is maintained, confirmed and up held.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/659266/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 84
**display title redacted:** Mumbai Police Police Officer and others vs State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['outcome_type', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2000(5) Bom CR 410', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1999-09-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2000(5) Bom CR 410', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/659266/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; Section 330 convictions of all 7 Oshiwara officers for custodial torture-death confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1999-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0010)

## Jath Police Police Head Constable vs State of Maharashtra (CW-1999-0014)

**Record:** CW-1999-0014 (compiler id CWC-0768); case GAP2-9-002
**Title:** Jath Police Police Head Constable vs State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: S. S. Parkar
**Case number / citation:** Appeal against Special Case No. 3 of 1989 (Special Judge, Sangli) / (2000) 102 Bom LR 560
**Judgment:** 1999-12-17 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-04-01 (1987)
**Place:** Sangli, Maharashtra; city town: Jath; police station or unit: Jath Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; IPC 217
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Jath Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (6 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** fine
**Sentence type:** fine (fine)

The Bombay High Court confirmed the conviction of Police Head Constable of Jath Police Station, Sangli, for demanding and accepting Rs 790 in illegal gratification from six vehicle owners to release seized vehicles without prosecution and for hushing up Motor Vehicles Act cases. The Court held the evidence of the vehicle owners, PW-2 Constable, the duty-book register and checking-report counterfoils proved the charges, and rejected the defences on investigation by an officer below DySP rank and unproved station-house duties. The Court set aside the one-year rigorous imprisonment on each count but enhanced the fine from Rs 500 to Rs 2,000 on each count, with the default sentence retained. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The convictions of the appellant for offences under Sections 161 and 217 of Indian Penal Code in Special Case No. 3 of 1989 are confirmed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1442028/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Jath Police Police Head Constable vs State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2000) 102 Bom LR 560', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1999-12-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2000) 102 Bom LR 560', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1442028/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC confirmed ss.161/217 IPC bribery convictions; sentence modified to enhanced fine.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1999-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0014)

## Malkapur Man vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2001-0014)

**Record:** CW-2001-0014 (compiler id CWC-1137); case GAP3-20-004
**Title:** Malkapur Man vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur; judges: J.N. Patel, J.; P.V. Hardas, J.
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 312 of 1999 / (2002) 104 BOMLR 34; (2001) 4 MhLj 601
**Judgment:** 2001-07-27 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-10-24 (1999)
**Place:** Buldhana, Maharashtra; city town: Malkapur; police station or unit: Police Station (Rural), Malkapur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.21; Constitution Art.226; CrPC 107; CrPC 110; IPC 353
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Malkapur police, Buldhana district; Police Constable, Police Station (Rural), Malkapur; Police personnel, Malkapur police, Buldhana district; Police personnel, Malkapur police, Buldhana district (4 in record)
**Victims:** Malkapur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 15,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) held that journalist Surendra Taori of Malkapur was mercilessly beaten by police officers in Rural Police Station custody on 24 October 1999, sustaining serious injuries including to his right eye, after reporting on police malpractice. The court further held he was illegally detained from 23 to 30 October 1999 under Chapter VIII CrPC proceedings before a police officer acting as Special Executive Magistrate, without following ss.111 and 116 CrPC and in violation of Articles 14 and 21. It directed the State to pay Rs. 15,000 compensation plus Rs. 5,000 costs within four weeks and to take suitable action against the guilty officers (respondent Nos. 3 to 6), with liberty to recover the sum from those found responsible. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We have already come to the conclusion that the petitioner was tortured in Police Custody which was illegal, causing him serious injuries and further came to be detained under the impugned order illegally and unauthorisedly, without following the procedure provided under Sections 111 and 116 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1562282/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/821081/surendra-ramchandra-taori-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Malkapur Man vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-07-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 15,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2002) 104 BOMLR 34; (2001) 4 MhLj 601', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1562282/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/821081/surendra-ramchandra-taori-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC found custodial torture + illegal detention; Rs 15,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2001-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0014)

## Akola Man vs Superintendent of Police, Akola and Ors. (CW-2001-0008)

**Record:** CW-2001-0008 (compiler id CWC-0764); case MAHARA-002; aliases: CWC-0235
**Title:** Akola Man vs Superintendent of Police, Akola and Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur; judges: J.N. Patel; S.K. Shah
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 277 of 2000 / (2002) ACJ 1307; (2002) CriLJ 914; (2002) 1 MhLJ 273; (2002) BomCR(Cri) 371
**Judgment:** 2001-09-17 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-09-30 (1999)
**Place:** Akola, Maharashtra; city town: Akola; police station or unit: Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola; Police Inspector, Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola (2 in record)
**Victims:** Akola man, age 36 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** Rs 1.8 lakh (Rs 1,75,000)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. An Akola man, arrested on 29.9.1999 in Crime No. 205/1999, was found dead in the Ramdaspeth police lock-up on the morning of 30.9.1999; the post-mortem recorded 21 ante-mortem injuries (20 contusions, one abrasion) with death by syncope from multiple injuries. The Court rejected the police story blaming the watchmen and the medical officer, holding an Akola man died a homicidal death in police custody from brutal custodial torture and that the on-duty officers were responsible, the State having failed to explain the injuries or comply with the D.K. Basu guidelines. It directed the State to deposit Rs 1,75,000 compensation (Rs 75,000 for daughter \[name withheld\], Rs 50,000 each for sons and Aakash, via fixed deposits) plus Rs 5,000 costs, ordered a DIG-or-above investigation with disciplinary proceedings and prosecution of all officers on duty from arrest till death, allowed recovery from those found responsible, and ordered contempt show-cause particulars. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> only inference which the Court can draw is that the police officers who were at the relevant time on duty in the police station are responsible for the custodial violence meted out to the deceased \[name withheld\]

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33124/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/921838/fattuji-dajiba-gedam-appellant-hash-superintendent-of-police-akola-and-others-respondent/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118914/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Akola Man vs Superintendent of Police, Akola and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-09-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 175,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2002) ACJ 1307; (2002) CriLJ 914; (2002) 1 MhLJ 273; (2002) BomCR(Cri) 371', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33124/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/921838/fattuji-dajiba-gedam-appellant-hash-superintendent-of-police-akola-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118914/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DUPLICATE of CWC-0144: same judgment (Criminal WP 277/2000, Bombay HC, 17.9.2001, JJ J.N. Patel and S.K. Shah) under a different indiankanoon doc id (33124 vs 118914). Primary URL rate-limited (HTTP 429); full text verified via CourtKutchehry mirror. Verdict on merits: accept — custodial death by torture held proved, Rs 1,75,000 compensation plus Rs 5,000 costs, DIG-or-above investigation with disciplinary proceedings and prosecution directed, contempt show-cause ordered. Incident date corrected to death date 1999-09-30 (arrest 29-09-1999).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2001-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0008)

## Newasa Man v. State of Maharashtra and Others (CW-2002-0012)

**Record:** CW-2002-0012 (compiler id CWC-0731); case SWILLEGA-089
**Title:** Newasa Man v. State of Maharashtra and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: S.S. Parkar; D.S. Zoting
**Case number / citation:** (2002)104BOMLR8
**Judgment:** 2002-01-30 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-05-05 (1990)
**Place:** Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra (district at time: Ahmednagar); city town: Newasa; police station or unit: Newasa Police Station, Ahilyanagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC s.41(2); CrPC s.110; CrPC s.113; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 22(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** PSI (In-charge), Newasa PS, Ahilyanagar; Executive Magistrate, Newasa (2 in record)
**Victims:** Newasa man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench, Justices S.S. Parkar and D.S. Zoting) awarded symbolic compensation of Rs 10,000 to a Newasa man for a mala fide 2.5-day detention in May 1990. Arrested on 5 May 1990 on a threat complaint by a witness in an earlier criminal case against him, he was kept in custody without any magistrate's orders and produced only on 7 May 1990 in s.110 chapter proceedings, then released on a Rs 1,000 bond. The Court held arrest under s.41(2) CrPC without obtaining s.113 orders was unwarranted and unexplained, granted compensation (kept symbolic for lapse of time) payable in four weeks via the Additional Registrar, and left the State free to inquire and proceed against the erring officer including by criminal action. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was kept in detention for a period of two and half days without producing him before the appropriate authority with mala fide intention without giving any explanation justifying the said detention, the petitioner is entitled for payment of compensation.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1791716/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Newasa Man v. State of Maharashtra and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-01-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2002)104BOMLR8', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1791716/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; symbolic Rs 10,000 for mala fide 2.5-day detention matches.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0012)

## Aurangabad Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2002-0001)

**Record:** CW-2002-0001 (compiler id CWC-0253); case MAHARA-012
**Title:** Aurangabad Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: S.S. Parkar; D.S. Zoting
**Case number / citation:** 2003(2) Bom CR 215; 2002(4) Mh LJ 37
**Judgment:** 2002-02-13 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-11-08 (1994)
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra (district at time: Aurangabad); city town: Aurangabad; police station or unit: Kranti Chowk Police Station (arrest by City Chowk Police); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Special Squad, Aurangabad City police; Head Constable, Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad; Police personnel, Kranti Chowk / City Chowk / Osmanpura Police Stations (2 in record)
**Victims:** Aurangabad man, age 32 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) held that an Aurangabad man, arrested on 30-10-1994 and found dead in the Kranti Chowk lock-up on the night of 8/9 November 1994 after about ten days in custody, died a homicidal custodial death following torture. The court rejected the police suicide-by-hanging story as physically impossible and a concocted cover-up, distrusted the CID inquiry as disguising police sins, and called the inquest dishonest. Holding the State liable in public law, it awarded Rs 2 lakh compensation (Rs 50,000 cash to the widow, Rs 1.5 lakh in fixed deposit for the children) plus Rs 5,000 costs. It further directed the CBI to register a case, investigate and prosecute those responsible, and ordered disciplinary proceedings against them. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This is especially so when we are not in doubt that from the facts and circumstances of the case and the false story attempted to be put up by the police, the police alone are responsible for the death of the deceased while he was in their custody.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1880596/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Aurangabad Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-02-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2003(2) Bom CR 215; 2002(4) Mh LJ 37', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1880596/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC (Aurangabad) held homicidal custodial death; Rs 2L compensation + CBI probe ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0001)

## Manegaon Woman vs \[name withheld\] & Anr. (CW-2002-0031)

**Record:** CW-2002-0031 (compiler id CWC-1136); case GAP3-20-003
**Title:** Manegaon Woman vs \[name withheld\] & Anr.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur; judges: V.M. Kanade, J.; R.K. Batta, J.
**Case number / citation:** Criminal W.P. No. 103 of 2002 / (2002) 4 MhLj 865; (2003) BomCR (Cri) 338
**Judgment:** 2002-09-06 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-03-05 (1998)
**Place:** Bhandara, Maharashtra; city town: Manegaon (Bazar); police station or unit: Veltur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.21; Constitution Art.226; IPC 143
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Station Officer, Veltur Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Manegaon woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) held that Police Station Officer of Veltur falsely arrayed housewife Sharda Bhongade as an accused in a 1995 morcha case without any investigation, showing blatant disregard for the rule of law. The court found she suffered mental and physical agony, monetary loss and loss of self-esteem until her discharge by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kuhi, in clear violation of her Article 21 rights. It directed the State Government to pay her Rs. 25,000 compensation within four weeks of communication of the order, with liberty to recover half the amount from the delinquent officer. The petition began as a letter dated 6 February 2002 converted into a criminal writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Police Officers are supposed to be the custodian and guardians of the citizens of this country. However, from the facts of this case, it appears that the respondent No. 1 instead of protecting the interest of the citizens has callously and negligently implicated the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1955757/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/803813/sharda-narayan-bhongade-appellant-hash-surendra-jagmohan-pali-and-another-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Manegaon Woman vs \[name withheld\] & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-09-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2002) 4 MhLj 865; (2003) BomCR (Cri) 338', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1955757/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/803813/sharda-narayan-bhongade-appellant-hash-surendra-jagmohan-pali-and-another-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held false implication without investigation; Rs 25,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0031)

## Aurangabad Man vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2003-0016)

**Record:** CW-2003-0016 (compiler id CWC-1134); case GAP3-20-001
**Title:** Aurangabad Man vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: B.B. Vagyani, J.; A.S. Bagga, J.
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 431 of 2001 / (2003) 105 BOMLR 302; 2003(2) ALD (Cri) 82
**Judgment:** 2003-03-13 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-04-28 (2001)
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra (district at time: Aurangabad); city town: Aurangabad; police station or unit: City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.21; Constitution Art.22; Constitution Art.226; CrPC 41
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Aurangabad man, age 76 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Replace 'with a B Summary sought' with 'and moved the Magistrate for discharge of the petitioner (para 8)'. The judgment never uses the term 'B Summary'. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Having examined the case of the petitioner, in the light of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred above, we are of the clear opinion that the arrest and detention of the petitioner was unjustified. The arrest and detention of the petitioner was mischievous and malicious. The fundamental right of the petitioner has been abrogated by illegal arrest and detention.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1034368/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/782579/dinkarrao-pole-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 28
**display title redacted:** Aurangabad Man vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-03-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2003) 105 BOMLR 302; 2003(2) ALD (Cri) 82', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1034368/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/782579/dinkarrao-pole-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held arrest/detention malicious; Rs 25,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0016)

## Bhandara Man vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2003-0018)

**Record:** CW-2003-0018 (compiler id CWC-1135); case GAP3-20-002
**Title:** Bhandara Man vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.; P.S. Brahme, J.
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 287 of 2000 / 2003(2) ALD (Cri) 122; 2003(4) MHLJ 436
**Judgment:** 2003-04-30 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-01-01 (2000)
**Place:** Bhandara, Maharashtra; city town: Bhandara; police station or unit: Central Jail, Bhandara; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.21; Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Central Jail, Bhandara; Police personnel, Central Jail, Bhandara; Police personnel, Central Jail, Bhandara; Police personnel, Central Jail, Bhandara; Police personnel, Central Jail, Bhandara (5 in record)
**Victims:** Bhandara man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court held that undertrial a Bhandara man died a custodial death in Central Jail, Bhandara after five named personnel forced him into wrestling practice, fracturing his waist and neck bones; he was hospitalised in January 2000 and death was reported on 8 February 2000. The court found him a victim of barbaric treatment by servants of the State and directed the State to pay his widow Rs. 3,00,000 compensation plus Rs. 2,000 costs. It further ordered an inquiry fixing responsibility, recovery of the sum from those responsible, and initiation of legal proceedings against all persons responsible for the death, with compliance reports due in 2003-2004. A criminal proceeding against one jail staff member was already on record. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The deceased being victim of barbaric treatment by the servants of the State, it is primarily the responsibility of the State to pay the compensation with the right to recover the same from its servants who are responsible for the custodial death of Anil after holding inquiry in that regard and fixing the liability.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599372/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1022868/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/814108/shobha-londase-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Bhandara Man vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-04-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2003(2) ALD (Cri) 122; 2003(4) MHLJ 436', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599372/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1022868/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/814108/shobha-londase-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC found custodial death; Rs 3L compensation; jail staff called police personnel in judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0018)

## Sangli District Police personnel vs State of Maharashtra (CW-2004-0008)

**Record:** CW-2004-0008 (compiler id CWC-1110); case GAP3-128-001
**Title:** Sangli District Police personnel vs State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Y. K. Sabharwal; Arijit Pasayat
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 1997 / (2004) 9 SCC 31; AIR 2004 SC 2678
**Judgment:** 2004-03-09 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-07-18 (1983)
**Place:** Sangli, Maharashtra; city town: Sangli; police station or unit: Sangli Police Headquarters (magazine-room/guard-room duty); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 307; Arms Act 1959 s.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Sangli District Police Headquarters, Maharashtra Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Sangli man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of policeman for attempting to murder his sleeping colleague-relative a Sangli man with a service.303 rifle at the Sangli police headquarters guard room on 18 July 1983. The Court held intention and knowledge under Section 307 IPC proved, the bullet having struck the cot springs with splinters piercing the victim's leg, and sustained the Bombay High Court's upgrade of the trial court's Section 324 conviction to Section 307. It observed that a guardian of law firing in a public place deserved severe punishment but reduced the Section 307 term from ten to five years' RI given the peculiar background. The Arms Act conviction was maintained; the appeal otherwise stands dismissed.

> Both intention and knowledge in terms of Section 307 can be attributed to the accused. Therefore, the High Court was justified in recording conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 307 IPC.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1930505/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae05e4b0149711412b8b)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Sangli District Police personnel vs State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2004) 9 SCC 31; AIR 2004 SC 2678', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2004-03-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2004) 9 SCC 31; AIR 2004 SC 2678', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1930505/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae05e4b0149711412b8b', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Police accused's s.307 IPC + Arms Act conviction upheld (private/family dispute, not colour of duty); sentence cut 10 to 5 years RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2004-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0008)

## Sheela Nagpur Man vs Home Department and Ors. (CW-2005-0002)

**Record:** CW-2005-0002 (compiler id CWC-0238); case SWCUSTOD-023
**Title:** Sheela Nagpur Man vs Home Department and Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur; judges: J.N. Patel; S.T. Kharche
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 328 of 2002 / 2005 Cri LJ 2224
**Judgment:** 2005-01-27 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-02-27 (2002)
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra; city town: Nagpur; police station or unit: Police Station Gittikhadan and Police Station Lakadganj, Nagpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 330; IPC 342; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur; Head Constable, Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur; Head Constable, Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur; Police Constable, Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur (4 in record)
**Victims:** Nagpur man, age 40 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** Rs 8 lakh (Rs 8,00,000)

Sudhakar Yerpude, a Nagpur goldsmith, was picked up by Lakadganj police on 9 February 2002, detained for three days without any arrest record, and released only after handing over gold, silver and Rs 15,000, the court found. He was picked up again by Gittikhadan police on the night of 27 February 2002 and tortured to death in custody, a custodial death the State did not dispute and the CID confirmed, charge-sheeting four policemen for murder. The Division Bench held both detentions violated Articles 21 and 22 and the D.K. Basu safeguards, awarded Rs 8 lakh compensation plus Rs 10,000 costs to the widow and minor children, and permitted recovery from the responsible officers of both police stations. The court stressed the award must deter officers from such illegal acts. Crime No. 76 of 2002 was registered against Sub-Inspector, Head Constables and \[name withheld\], and Constable, who were arrested on 11 April 2002; the court recorded no finding of guilt against any individual, leaving guilt to the trial. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the compensation, which is to be awarded, should also have a deterrent effect on the State so that its officers should not be encouraged to indulge in such illegal acts

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1078209/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/924689/sheela-s-yerpude-appellant-hash-home-department-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** null -> '32'
**display title redacted:** Sheela Nagpur Man vs Home Department and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-01-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 800,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2005 Cri LJ 2224', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1078209/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/924689/sheela-s-yerpude-appellant-hash-home-department-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** ACCEPT: full judgment text verified via courtkutchehry mirror (2005 CriLJ 2224); custodial death established, Rs 8 lakh plus Rs 10,000 costs awarded with recovery permitted from officers of both stations; criminal trial (Crime No. 76/2002) against Gittikhadan officers pending at judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2005-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0002)

## State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs Navi Mumbai Police Police Constable (CW-2005-0011)

**Record:** CW-2005-0011 (compiler id CWC-1139); case GAP3-21-002
**Title:** State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs Navi Mumbai Police Police Constable
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: F.I. Rebello; S.P. Kukday
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 4622 of 2003 / (2005) 4 BomCR 67
**Judgment:** 2005-03-09 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Maharashtra; city town: Navi Mumbai; police station or unit: Office of the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Bombay Police Act 1951; Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules 1956
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Police Constable was dismissed from service on 13.05.1999 after a departmental enquiry (June-October 1998), but the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal set aside the dismissal as without authority of law. The State's writ petition relied on a later MAT Full Bench holding that enquiry powers under the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules 1956 subsist. The court set aside the MAT order, declined to interfere with the punishment noting \[name withheld\]'s subsequent 569-day unauthorised absence, and protected wages paid since reinstatement. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> That being the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the punishment imposed.

**Sources (3):** [ia803208.us.archive.org](https://ia803208.us.archive.org/16/items/india.highcourt.judgement.hcbm010212052002/HCBM010212052002.pdf); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/811904/state-of-maharashtra-and-another-appellant-hash-dilip-anant-surve-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=315002323000&title=state-of-maharashtra-vs-dilip-anant-surve)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs Navi Mumbai Police Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-03-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2005) 4 BomCR 67', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://ia803208.us.archive.org/16/items/india.highcourt.judgement.hcbm010212052002/HCBM010212052002.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/811904/state-of-maharashtra-and-another-appellant-hash-dilip-anant-surve-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=315002323000&title=state-of-maharashtra-vs-dilip-anant-surve', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC set aside MAT order; police constable's dismissal from service restored.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2005-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0011)

## The Senior Inspector of Police and Ors. vs Shri \[name withheld\] (CW-2005-0006)

**Record:** CW-2005-0006 (compiler id CWC-0242); case MAHARA-009
**Title:** The Senior Inspector of Police and Ors. vs Shri \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: R.M. Lodha; R.S. Mohite
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition against MAT order dated 12.11.2002 in Original Application No. 602 of 2002 / 2005(5) Bom CR 294
**Judgment:** 2005-04-01 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-05-28 (1993)
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra; city town: Pune; police station or unit: Khadki Police Station, Pune; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Prevention of Corruption Act 7; Prevention of Corruption Act 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Khadki Police Station, Pune (1 in record)
**Victims:** Pune man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Head Constable of Khadki Police Station, Pune, was trapped by the Anti-Corruption Department on 28.5.1993 accepting illegal gratification for returning complainant \[name withheld\]'s tempo and documents, and convicted by the Special Court, Pune on 19.10.2001 (6 months RI plus Rs 7,500 fine). He was dismissed from service on 20.3.2002 under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2), but the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with backwages. The Division Bench held that suspension of sentence/conviction under section 389 CrPC pending appeal (Criminal Appeal 916/2001) does not wipe out the conviction or the underlying conduct, and that a public servant held guilty of corruption must be treated as corrupt until exonerated by a superior court. It allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's judgment and dismissed the original application, restoring the dismissal; the plea for stay was rejected. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Replace paraphrase with verbatim: 'When a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a Court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior Court.'

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/665528/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** null -> '19 (quoting K.C. Sareen v. CBI, AIR 2001 SC 3320)'
**display title redacted:** The Senior Inspector of Police and Ors. vs Shri \[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-04-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2005(5) Bom CR 294', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/665528/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified on indiankanoon (doc 665528). Division Bench allowed the State's writ, held the MAT order dated 12.11.2002 legally erroneous, set it aside and dismissed OA 602/2002, restoring the dismissal of a Head Constable convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused is police; disciplinary action upheld on merits.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2005-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0006)

## P. S. T. v. State of Maharashtra (CW-2006-0014)

**Record:** CW-2006-0014 (compiler id CWC-0735); case SWILLEGA-094
**Title:** P. S. T. v. State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur; judges: J.N. Patel; R.C. Chavan
**Case number / citation:** 2006 CriLJ 2202
**Judgment:** 2006-01-10 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-01-01 (1990)
**Place:** Gondia, Maharashtra; city town: Arjuni Morgaon; police station or unit: Arjuni (Mor) Police Station, Gondia; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 22; Constitution Art. 226; Juvenile Justice Act 1986; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 s.3(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Station Officer, Arjuni (Mor) Police Station, Gondia; Police Officer, Chichgarh, Deori, Gondia (2 in record)
**Victims:** Arjuni Morgaon girl, age 13 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

a 13-year-old girl, a 13-year-old Gond tribal girl, was seized from her home at midnight in 1990, hanged from a tree in the Keshori forest and beaten unconscious, then illegally detained for years with her arrest recorded only in 1993 and falsely implicated in three serious cases including under TADA, all ending in acquittal by the Juvenile Court for want of evidence. The Court rejected the State's cover-up, holding the detention, torture and false prosecution corroborated and monitored with senior officers' tacit consent. It ordered the State to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation plus Rs 10,000 costs within four weeks. It further directed a DIG-led Special Investigation Team of the State CID, including a lady SP, to fix responsibility, prosecute the guilty officers and recover the compensation, with an action-taken report in six months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In our considered opinion, the contentions of the petitioner that she was arrested, illegally detained and tortured and thereafter falsely implicated in these three cases stand well corroborated and there is no reason to disbelieve her on this count.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1095603/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** P. S. T. v. State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-01-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2006 CriLJ 2202', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1095603/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held illegal detention/torture/false implication proved, awarded Rs 5 lakh + SIT probe; matches outcome.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 13, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a 13-year-old girl'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0014)

## State Reserve Police personnel vs State of Maharashtra (CW-2006-0027)

**Record:** CW-2006-0027 (compiler id CWC-1113); case GAP3-129-001
**Title:** State Reserve Police personnel vs State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. B. Sinha; Dalveer Bhandari
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 1512-1513 of 2005 / (2006) 12 SCC 512
**Judgment:** 2006-10-19 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-09-03 (1988)
**Place:** Maharashtra; police station or unit: State Reserve Police, Maharashtra; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, State Reserve Police, Maharashtra (1 in record)
**Victims:** Maharashtra woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of \[name withheld\], an employee of the State Reserve Police, against his concurrent conviction under Section 302 IPC for the murder of a Maharashtra woman on 3 September 1988. The Court credited the last-seen evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4, corroborated by medical evidence, and held absence of proved motive immaterial in a circumstantial case of this kind. It found the circumstances amply supported the prosecution case and dismissed the appeal, leaving the courts-below sentence standing. The offence was private-context, not under colour of police duty; the SC text states no district or sentence terms. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We, therefore, have no hesitation in affirming the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court and hold that the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution clearly demonstrate that it was Appellant alone who committed the murder and in that view of the matter absence of motive would be immaterial.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1160791/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** State Reserve Police personnel vs State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2006) 12 SCC 512', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2006-10-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2006) 12 SCC 512', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1160791/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Murder conviction of serving SRP employee upheld on last-seen + medical evidence (private-context offence); sentence terms unstated.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0027)

## The State of Maharashtra vs Kolhapur Police Inspector and others (CW-2007-0020)

**Record:** CW-2007-0020 (compiler id CWC-1140); case GAP3-21-003
**Title:** The State of Maharashtra vs Kolhapur Police Inspector and others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: D.G. Deshpande; S.R. Sathe
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1084 of 1988 with Criminal Revision Application No. 82 of 1989
**Judgment:** 2007-03-22 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1985-12-17 (1985)
**Place:** Kolhapur, Maharashtra; city town: Kolhapur; police station or unit: Shahupuri Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 302 r/w 34; IPC 342 r/w 34; IPC 218 r/w 34; IPC 193 r/w 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Shahupuri Police Station, Kolhapur; Police personnel, Shahupuri Police Station, Kolhapur; Inspector, Shahupuri Police Station, Kolhapur (3 in record)
**Victims:** Kolhapur man, age 25 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

Arun Pandav, 25, was picked up from his home around midnight on 16.12.1985 by Shahupuri police probing an elopement case and found dead with 19 injuries in the lock-up on 17.12.1985. The Sessions Court acquitted all 11 accused policemen, accepting a heart-failure theory. The court held Arun died of assault in the lock-up, the arrest panchanama and station records were fabricated, and convicted accused Nos.1-3 under ss.302/342/218/193 r/w s.34 IPC with concurrent life terms, upholding the acquittal of the other eight. Later proceedings: on 19 November 2013, the Supreme Court of India set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are held guilty Under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for two years.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1774485/); [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/india.highcourt.judgement.hcbm010000181988/HCBM010000181988.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** Operative order (after para 77)
**display title redacted:** The State of Maharashtra vs Kolhapur Police Inspector and others
**final outcome url:** https://hcraj.nic.in/sci/2007/4-1004-2007_2013-11-19.pdf
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-03-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1084 of 1988 with Criminal Revision Application No. 82 of 1989', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2013-11-19', 'action_type': 'Acquitted on appeal', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'Later proceedings: on 19 November 2013, the Supreme Court of India set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand.', 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Conviction not standing', 'source': 'https://hcraj.nic.in/sci/2007/4-1004-2007_2013-11-19.pdf', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2013-11-19', 'url': 'https://hcraj.nic.in/sci/2007/4-1004-2007_2013-11-19.pdf', 'outcome': 'acquitted_on_appeal'}; {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2013-11-19', 'url': 'https://hcraj.nic.in/sci/2007/4-1004-2007_2013-11-19.pdf', 'outcome': 'conviction_set_aside'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1774485/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://archive.org/download/india.highcourt.judgement.hcbm010000181988/HCBM010000181988.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** overturned
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC reversed acquittal; 3 Shahupuri policemen convicted of custodial murder, life terms.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2007-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0020)

## Nagpur Police Police Inspector and others vs State of Maharashtra (CW-2007-0032)

**Record:** CW-2007-0032 (compiler id CWC-0769); case GAP2-10-001
**Title:** Nagpur Police Police Inspector and others vs State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 393, 394, 395, 397, 419 and 420 of 1995 / LAWS(BOM)-2007-12-88
**Judgment:** 2007-12-13 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-06-24 (1993)
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra; city town: Nagpur; police station or unit: Crime Branch, Nagpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Nagpur; Assistant Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Nagpur; Sub-Inspector, Crime Branch, Nagpur; Police Constable, Crime Branch, Nagpur; Police Constable, Crime Branch, Nagpur; Police Constable, Crime Branch, Nagpur; Police Constable, Crime Branch, Nagpur; Police Constable, Crime Branch, Nagpur; Police Constable, Crime Branch, Nagpur (9 in record)
**Victims:** Nagpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) upheld the conviction of nine Nagpur Crime Branch policemen under Section 330 IPC for custodially torturing a Nagpur man, picked up from his home around 1 a.m. on 24 June 1993 and found dead in the lock-up that morning with 23 injuries. The Court dismissed the State appeals against acquittal for murder and for enhancement, acquitted the nine of the ss.354/355/342 charges and acquitted A-10 (Raghunath Bhakte) entirely. The Supreme Court (Yashwant Etc. vs State of Maharashtra, 4 September 2018) sustained the s.330 guilt, rejected the superior-orders defence, and enhanced the 3-year sentence to seven years rigorous imprisonment; A-1's appeal had abated on his death.

> By order dated 13.12.2007, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the State being Criminal Appeal Nos. 419 and 420 of 1995, but partly allowed the appeals preferred by the accused officer by acquitting accused no. 1 to 9 of the offences punishable under Sections 354, 355, 342 read with 34 of IPC, however, upheld the conviction under Section 330 of IPC.

**Sources (3):** [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=317002648100&title=bhaskar-sitaram-narule-vs-state-of-maharashatra); [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2018/september/yashwant-etc-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-1); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b8eba5b9eff430c43a25751)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10 (of SC judgment Yashwant Etc. vs State of Maharashtra, 4 Sept 2018, Criminal Appeal Nos. 385-386 of 2008 etc.)
**display title redacted:** Nagpur Police Police Inspector and others vs State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'LAWS(BOM)-2007-12-88', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2007-12-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'LAWS(BOM)-2007-12-88', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=317002648100&title=bhaskar-sitaram-narule-vs-state-of-maharashatra', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2018/september/yashwant-etc-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-1', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b8eba5b9eff430c43a25751', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC text paywalled; substance corroborated verbatim by SC judgment recording the 13.12.2007 order.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0032)

## Aurangabad Police Police Head Constable and others vs The State of Maharashtra (CW-2008-0029)

**Record:** CW-2008-0029 (compiler id CWC-1138); case GAP3-21-001
**Title:** Aurangabad Police Police Head Constable and others vs The State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: K.U. Chandiwal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1996
**Judgment:** 2008-11-17 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-04-30 (1991)
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra (district at time: Aurangabad); city town: Aurangabad; police station or unit: Waluj Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Aurangabad resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Police Head Constable demanded Rs.500 from complainant \[name withheld\] to desist from arresting two men in a land-dispute inquiry at Waluj, Aurangabad, taking Rs.100 on 27.04.1991 and the Rs.400 balance in an ACB trap at Rajasthan Upahargriha on 30.04.1991. The Special Judge, Aurangabad convicted him under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act 1988 (1 year RI + Rs.300 fine on each count). The court held sanction valid, the panch evidence credible, and demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted notes proved, dismissing the appeal and directing surrender on 08.12.2008.

> Thus, the crystallisation of the evidence establishes that there was motive, demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted notes.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/352580/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Aurangabad Police Police Head Constable and others vs The State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1996', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2008-11-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1996', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/352580/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC confirmed PHC's PC Act conviction; motive, demand, acceptance and recovery proved.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0029)

## Pusad Man & Anr. vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2009-0024)

**Record:** CW-2009-0024 (compiler id CWC-1142); case GAP3-22-002
**Title:** Pusad Man & Anr. vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: A.P. Lavande
**Case number / citation:** 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 1002
**Judgment:** 2009-05-04 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-10-24 (2003)
**Place:** Yavatmal, Maharashtra; city town: Pusad; police station or unit: Pusad Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (10 in record)
**Victims:** Pusad man, age 40 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Inderjitsingh Chauhan was arrested by Pusad police on 24.10.2003 and died in police custody; a three-doctor panel post-mortem showed antemortem injuries and CID registered ss.302/201 IPC against ten police personnel. His mother and brother sought Rs.10 lakh compensation under Article 226. The court held the custodial death established and awarded Rs.5,00,000 compensation to the heirs, with liberty to the State to recover from the erring officers. Full primary text was paywalled; facts and quantum corroborated by the-laws/casemine headnotes and a later Bombay HC judgment citing this case. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the petitioners seek direction against respondent No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. Ten lakhs to the heirs of the deceased \[name withheld\]

**Sources (3):** [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=319002347000&title=satyavatibai-vs-state-of-maharashtra); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/960462/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b4954f607dba348f011d69)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 1
**display title redacted:** Pusad Man & Anr. vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-05-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 1002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=319002347000&title=satyavatibai-vs-state-of-maharashtra', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/960462/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b4954f607dba348f011d69', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held custodial death established; Rs 5 lakh compensation (via headnote + citing HC judgment).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2009-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0024)

## Gowtham vs Senior Inspector of Police, Narcotic Cell CBCID Mumbai and Another (CW-2010-0032)

**Record:** CW-2010-0032 (compiler id CWC-1278); case GAP3-85-007
**Title:** Gowtham vs Senior Inspector of Police, Narcotic Cell CBCID Mumbai and Another
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: S. Nagamuthu
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.2933 of 1997
**Judgment:** 2010-08-24 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-03-01 (1997)
**Place:** Mumbai, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Azad Maidan Police Station lock-up, Mumbai (taken from Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Inspector of Police, Narcotic Cell, CBCID, Mumbai-1; Sub-Inspector of Police, Narcotic Cell, CBCID, Mumbai; Deputy Inspector of Police, Narcotic Cell, CBCID, Mumbai-1; Sub-Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu police (assisted identification at Tuticorin); Police Constable, Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai; Head Constable, Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai; Night Police Inspector, Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai (7 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man, age 57 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Mumbai Narcotic Cell police took a Mumbai man, aged about 57, into custody at Tuticorin on 20.2.1997 for interrogation in NDPS Crime No.18/1997, showed arrest only on 25.2.1997, and lodged him in the Azad Maidan lock-up, where he died on 1.3.1997. Though the autopsy and CBI found death by natural disease without injuries, the CBI confirmed transit-remand procedure was skipped and no medical examination was done. The Court held the arrest illegal, custody till 25.2.1997 illegal, and the deceased denied legal and medical assistance despite acute asthma and put to enormous mental torture. It directed the State of Maharashtra to pay Rs.2,50,000 compensation to the family. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> To sum up, I have to state that the deceased was arrested on 20.2.1997 illegally, the arrest was not intimated to the relatives, the grounds of arrest were not informed to the deceased, he was kept in the illegal custody till 25.2.1997, no legal assistance was given to him, no medical assistance was given to him up to 1.3.1997 and he was put under enormous mental torture. For all these things alone, the 1st respondent is liable to pay compensation.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1519892/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Gowtham vs Senior Inspector of Police, Narcotic Cell CBCID Mumbai and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-08-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 250,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No.2933 of 1997', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1519892/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held illegal custody, denial of medical aid and mental torture proved; Rs.2.5 lakh compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0032)

## Gondia Police Police Sub-Inspector v. State of Maharashtra (CW-2011-0012)

**Record:** CW-2011-0012 (compiler id CWC-0456); case SWCUSTOD-026
**Title:** Gondia Police Police Sub-Inspector v. State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur; judges: A.H. Joshi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 64, 65, 71, 76, 77 and 88 of 1997
**Judgment:** 2011-07-12 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-12-07 (1995)
**Place:** Gondia, Maharashtra (district at time: Bhandara); city town: Gondia; police station or unit: Gondia City Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 331; IPC 330; IPC 348; IPC 387; IPC 218; IPC 202; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector; Police Constable; Police Constable; Police Constable; Police Constable; Police Constable; Police Constable (7 in record)
**Victims:** Gondia man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 7 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Nagpur Bench upheld the convictions of a Sub-Inspector and six constables for the custodial torture and homicidal death of theft suspect \[name withheld\] at Gondia City station in December 1995, whose body was burnt to screen the offence. The Court held all charges proved except destruction of evidence regarding the dead body, maintaining the sentences including seven years under Section 304-II, and dismissed the State's appeal for murder charges. The Supreme Court later delivered a split verdict on 25.09.2024 (2024 INSC 734) and referred the matter to a larger bench, where it remains pending.

> In the result, this Court concludes that based on facts proved by the prosecution, it has succeeded in proving all charges, except the proof of destruction of evidence as regards dead body.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/708824/); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/custodial-deathsc-delivers-split-verdict-1995-case-came-up-in-appeal-before-it-after-12-yrs-1540487); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1409555/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 111
**display title redacted:** Gondia Police Police Sub-Inspector v. State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 64, 65, 71, 76, 77 and 88 of 1997', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-07-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 64, 65, 71, 76, 77 and 88 of 1997', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/708824/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/custodial-deathsc-delivers-split-verdict-1995-case-came-up-in-appeal-before-it-after-12-yrs-1540487', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1409555/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment text verified; convictions upheld but SC split 25.09.2024, larger-bench reference pending.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0012)

## Ramtek Man & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2011-0014)

**Record:** CW-2011-0014 (compiler id CWC-0259); case MAHARA-019
**Title:** Ramtek Man & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur; judges: A.H. Joshi; U.V. Bakre
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 474 of 2003 / 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1007
**Judgment:** 2011-08-02 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-07-22 (2003)
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra; city town: Ramtek; police station or unit: Ramtek Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Inspector, Kanhan Police Station; Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, Ramtek Police Station; Police Constable, Ramtek Police Station (3 in record)
**Victims:** Ramtek man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) held the State liable for the custodial death of Nitin Patil, who died while remanded in custody at Ramtek Police Station on 22 July 2003. Patil had been repeatedly arrested across multiple police stations in successive criminal cases and subjected to continuous custody before being found hanging in the lockup latrine. The High Court observed that the police failed to prove that circumstances surrounding the detainee were normal and that the death, though suicidal, attracted tortious liability. The court directed the State of Maharashtra to pay Rs 2,00,000 as compensation with 6% annual interest and Rs 10,000 costs to the deceased's family. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the result, this Court is satisfied that the death, though suicidal, attracts a tortuous liability to the State, though such liability would not be on the same rigours and lines.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/960462/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 71
**display title redacted:** Ramtek Man & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-08-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/960462/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC (Nagpur Bench) held State liable for custodial death of N. P., awarding Rs 2,00,000 compensation plus interest and costs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0014)

## Nagpur Man vs The Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison and Others (CW-2011-0034)

**Record:** CW-2011-0034 (compiler id CWC-0770); case GAP2-10-002
**Title:** Nagpur Man vs The Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur; judges: V. K. Tahilramani; M. L. Tahaliyani
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 285 of 2011 / (2011) 08 BOM CK 0119; 2012 (4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 609
**Judgment:** 2011-08-02 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-03-30 (2011)
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra; city town: Nagpur; police station or unit: Gadchiroli Police (court/warrant duty); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Gadchiroli Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Nagpur man, age 26 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) held that a Nagpur man, acquitted in his last sessions case on 29 March 2011, was detained in Nagpur Central Prison from the evening of 30 March to the morning of 3 April 2011 without any authority of law. The Court recorded the SP Gadchiroli's admission that Police Constable, tasked with carrying the jail warrant to court and back, was grossly negligent in failing to return the endorsed warrant, and rejected the two-day-travel excuse for the 160 km journey. It ordered the State to pay Rs 20,000 compensation at Rs 5,000 per day and noted a departmental enquiry against the constable would follow. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The gross negligence on the part of Police Constable \[name withheld\] has been admitted by respondent No.2.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193856127/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608fc95e4b014971114c544)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Nagpur Man vs The Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison and Others
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-08-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 20,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2011) 08 BOM CK 0119; 2012 (4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 609', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193856127/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608fc95e4b014971114c544', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench (corrected agent's single-judge claim); Rs 20,000 for 4 days post-acquittal detention.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0034)

## Gondia Woman vs State of Maharashtra (CW-2011-0026)

**Record:** CW-2011-0026 (compiler id CWC-0705); case GAP4-005
**Title:** Gondia Woman vs State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur; judges: A.H. Joshi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 293 of 2002
**Judgment:** 2011-08-05 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-12-01 (1995)
**Place:** Gondia, Maharashtra; city town: Gondia; police station or unit: Gondia City Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable, Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable, Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable, Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable, Gondia City Police Station; Head Constable, Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable, Gondia City Police Station (7 in record)
**Victims:** Gondia man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3.7 lakh (Rs 3,70,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Gondia man @ a Gondia man died in the custody of Gondia City police in December 1995 during interrogation; seven police personnel were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in February 1997 under Sections 304/34 IPC, convictions later confirmed up to the Supreme Court. His widow \[name withheld\] filed this compensation writ in 2002 for herself and five minor children. The State conceded the seven officers were solely responsible for the custodial death and contested only the quantum. The Nagpur Bench held the State vicariously liable and directed deposit of Rs. 1,06,000 per child (less Rs. 32,000 each already received, i.e. Rs. 3,70,000 net) with 6% interest plus Rs. 6,000 costs per petitioner, holding fine-compensation from the criminal trial would not set off this award. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We direct that the amount payable by respondents be deposited by the State within ninety days from the date of this Judgment in the District Court, Gondia, along with interest thereon @ 6% per annum.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1409555/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 38
**display title redacted:** Gondia Woman vs State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-08-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 370,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 293 of 2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1409555/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; State vicariously liable after officers' 304 IPC convictions stood; Rs. 3.7 lakh net to 5 children.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0026)

## Mumbai Police Head Constable vs State of Maharashtra (CW-2011-0035)

**Record:** CW-2011-0035 (compiler id CWC-1141); case GAP3-22-001
**Title:** Mumbai Police Head Constable vs State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: J.H. Bhatia
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 780 of 2006 / 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1731
**Judgment:** 2011-08-22 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-10-17 (2005)
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Sahar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 363; IPC 366; IPC 323; IPC 376(2)(a) r/w 511
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Sahar Police Station, Mumbai (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai girl, age 14 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 5.85 yrs; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Head Constable of Sahar police station took a ~14-year-old beggar girl in an autorickshaw on 17.10.2005 and sexually assaulted her near a temple wall until a passer-by intervened. The trial court convicted him under ss.363, 366, 376(2)(a) and 323 IPC with 15 years RI for rape. The court held the victim a minor whose consent was irrelevant and kept the ss.363/366/323 convictions, but held penetration unproved, converting the rape conviction to attempt under s.376(2)(a) r/w s.511 IPC with sentence reduced to imprisonment already undergone plus Rs.10,000 fine payable to the victim. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the facts and circumstances noted above, while in respect of conviction and sentences for the charges under sections 363, 366, 323 Indian Penal Code, no interference is called for, he is entitled to be acquitted for the charges under section 376 (2) (a) but is liable to be convicted for the offence for attempt to commit rape punishable under section 376 (2)(a) read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, because the accused committed that offence within the local limits of the police station where he was appointed as a head constable.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1393254/); [pdf.lawlens.in](https://pdf.lawlens.in/1a62add8-6aad-4879-a6d9-4fedc9ed84a1)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** Mumbai Police Head Constable vs State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1731', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-08-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1731', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1393254/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://pdf.lawlens.in/1a62add8-6aad-4879-a6d9-4fedc9ed84a1', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC kept kidnap/assault convictions; rape reduced to attempt; sentence cut to time served.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0035)

## Miss Mumbai Woman vs \[name withheld\] and Others (CW-2012-0026)

**Record:** CW-2012-0026 (compiler id CWC-0771); case GAP2-10-003
**Title:** Miss Mumbai Woman vs \[name withheld\] and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: A. S. Oka; A. V. Potdar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1666 of 2010 / 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 1263
**Judgment:** 2012-03-05 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-04-05 (2008)
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Gamdevi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 22; Constitution Art. 226; Bombay Police Act 1951 s.79; Bombay Police Act 1951 s.112; Bombay Police Act 1951 s.117
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Inspector, Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai; Sub-Inspector, Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai; Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gamdevi Division, Mumbai (3 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court held that officers of Gamdevi Police Station illegally detained a Mumbai woman overnight from 5 to 6 April 2008 after she visited the station to collect her complaint FIR, without any arrest memo, intimation to her mother, entry in the arrest register, or information of her bail rights for a bailable offence. The Court found a patent and uncontroverted violation of Article 21 in breach of the D.K. Basu and Sheela Barse guidelines. It directed the State to pay Rs 2,50,000 compensation with 8% interest from 5 April 2008 plus Rs 25,000 costs, left recovery from the erring officers open, and dismissed the petition against respondent No.4 (PI \[name withheld\]) with whom the petitioner had no grievance. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We hold that the detention of the Petitioner by the officers of Gamdevi Police Station from 5th April, 2008 to 6th April, 2008 is illegal and there has been a gross violation of the fundamental right of the Petitioner guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75479442/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Miss Mumbai Woman vs \[name withheld\] and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-03-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 250,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2012 ALL MR (Cri) 1263', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75479442/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Overnight detention of woman without arrest memo; Rs 2.5L + interest + Rs 25k costs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0026)

## Baramati Woman vs State of Maharashtra (CW-2012-0017)

**Record:** CW-2012-0017 (compiler id CWC-0706); case GAP4-003
**Title:** Baramati Woman vs State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: A.S. Oka
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1795 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2012-03-31 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-06-14 (2009)
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra; city town: Baramati; police station or unit: Baramati City Police Station, Pune; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 22; Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Police Inspector, Baramati City Police Station, Pune; Assistant Police Inspector, Baramati Police Station; Police Constable, Baramati Police Station; Police Constable, Baramati Police Station; Police Constable, Baramati Police Station; Police Constable, Baramati Police Station; Police Constable, Baramati Police Station (7 in record)
**Victims:** Baramati man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 4.5 lakh (Rs 4,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. A Baramati man, a labourer of Karjat (Ahmednagar), was forcibly picked up on 14 June 2009 by Baramati police without arrest memo, station-diary entry or permission to enter another district; his wife alleged a constable repeatedly demanded Rs. 10 lakh for his release. A Baramati man died in police custody, and the officers gave shifting accounts (accident, then suicide), gave no first aid and cremated the body at Baramati. The Court held he was taken into custody in a totally illegal manner in gross violation of D.K. Basu safeguards, and that the police version of death was totally inconsistent so the officers had to explain it. It awarded Rs. 4,50,000 compensation (inclusive of Rs. 1,00,000 under a government scheme) with 8% interest plus Rs. 25,000 costs on the officers, and directed an ADGP-rank enquiry into whether the death was accidental or homicidal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A Baramati man was in the custody of the police officers, and their own version of death of a Baramati man is totally inconsistent.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58045364/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 41
**display title redacted:** Baramati Woman vs State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-03-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 450,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 1795 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58045364/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; incident year corrected to 2009 per judgment record; Rs. 4.5 lakh for death in illegal custody.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0017)

## Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra (CW-2012-0007)

**Record:** CW-2012-0007 (compiler id CWC-0239); case MAHARA-006
**Title:** Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: A.M. Khanwilkar; P.D. Kode
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1017 of 2005
**Judgment:** 2012-04-10 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-01-06 (2003)
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Ghatkopar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** PSI, Ghatkopar Police Station / Crime Branch Unit VIII, Mumbai; Police Constable, Ghatkopar Police Station / Crime Branch Unit VIII, Mumbai; Police Constable, Ghatkopar Police Station / Crime Branch Unit VIII, Mumbai; Police Constable, Ghatkopar Police Station / Crime Branch Unit VIII, Mumbai (4 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man, age 27 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20 lakh (Rs 20,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Mumbai man, 27, arrested in December 2002 in the Ghatkopar bus-blast case, died on 6-1-2003 at Ghatkopar Police Station; police claimed he escaped en route to Aurangabad, but a CID probe found custodial torture and death and trial began against four policemen. His mother \[name withheld\]'s writ was allowed with the court holding the fundamental rights of a Mumbai man and his mother violated in custody and enhancing compensation from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 20 lakh, reported as then the highest custodial-death award in India. The court refused the prayers for sanction and suspension against other officers and stressed its observations must not influence the pending murder trial.

> As aforesaid, it is a case of violation of fundamental rights of a Mumbai man, who mysteriously disappeared and presumably died, whilst in police custody. This position is virtually accepted in the criminal action initiated by the State (presently against respondent Nos. 5 to 8).

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29244602/); [indianexpress.com](https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/from-rs-3-lakh-to-rs-20-lakh-court-raises-compensation-for-custody-death-victims-mother/); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/ghatkopar-custodial-death-case-bombay-high-court-directs-framing-murder-charges-against-police-officers)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-04-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 1017 of 2005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29244602/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/from-rs-3-lakh-to-rs-20-lakh-court-raises-compensation-for-custody-death-victims-mother/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/ghatkopar-custodial-death-case-bombay-high-court-directs-framing-murder-charges-against-police-officers', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC raised custodial-death compensation from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 20 lakh.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0007)

## Mumbai Man v. State of Maharashtra (CW-2012-0019)

**Record:** CW-2012-0019 (compiler id CWC-0733); case SWILLEGA-092
**Title:** Mumbai Man v. State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: V. M. Kanade; P. D. Kode
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1006 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2012-06-25 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-08-10 (2011)
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Andheri Police Station, Mumbai; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC s.46(4); CrPC s.54; CrPC s.55A; CrPC s.60; CrPC s.160; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Andheri Police Station; Police Sub-Inspector, Andheri Police Station; Police Sub-Inspector, Andheri Police Station; Police Constable, Andheri Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man, age 78; Mumbai man; Mumbai man, age 75; Mumbai man, age 63; Mumbai man, age 65; Mumbai man, age 72; Mumbai man, age 72; Mumbai woman, age 42; Mumbai woman, age 65; Mumbai man, age 40; Mumbai man, age 47; Mumbai man, age 62; Mumbai man, age 52; Mumbai man, age 75; Mumbai man, age 60; Mumbai man, age 44; Mumbai man (17 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 67,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Police raided card games at the Andheri Gymkhana on 10 August 2011 and detained 17 people, including senior citizens and two women, at Andheri police station from 9:30 pm till 6 am without food, toilet access or medicines. The Court held the bridge and rummy games were games of skill excluded from the Gambling Act, and that detaining the two women after sunset without a magistrate's permission breached section 46(4) CrPC along with sections 54, 55A and 60. It found the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 21 violated by the highhanded, procedurally improper raid and detention. The State was directed to pay Rs 1,000 to each petitioner plus Rs 25,000 each to the two women, though the Court declined a departmental inquiry as the officers acted bona fide. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 have clearly violated provisions of section 46(4), section 54, section 55A read with section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and, as such, the fundamental rights of the Petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are clearly violated by the police.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37680629/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** Mumbai Man v. State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-06-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 67,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 1006 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37680629/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held Art 21 violated by illegal detention and awarded compensation; matches outcome.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0019)

## Niraj Mumbai Woman and Others vs \[name withheld\] and Others (CW-2012-0038)

**Record:** CW-2012-0038 (compiler id CWC-0772); case GAP2-10-004
**Title:** Niraj Mumbai Woman and Others vs \[name withheld\] and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: A. S. Oka; S. S. Shinde
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 856 of 2012 / 2013 (2) Bom CR (Cri) 260
**Judgment:** 2012-12-21 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-12-02 (2011)
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Navghar Police Station, Mulund; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 22; Constitution Art. 226; CrPC s.57; CrPC s.41B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Navghar Police Station, Mumbai; Senior Inspector, Navghar Police Station, Mumbai; Police Constable, Navghar Police Station, Mumbai (Buckle No. 97015); Police Constable, Navghar Police Station, Mumbai (Buckle No. 8040305) (4 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man, age 66; Mumbai woman, age 62 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court held that PSI of Navghar Police Station took two senior citizens, a Mumbai man (66) and a Mumbai woman (62) a Mumbai man, into custody at Aurangabad on the night of 2 December 2011 in a s.498A case and kept them detained without showing arrest until 4 December 2011, about 35 hours 40 minutes, without an arrest memo or production before the nearest magistrate. The Court found gross violations of Articles 21 and 22 and the D.K. Basu directions, a violation that shocks the conscience of the Court. It directed the State to pay Rs 2,50,000 each with 8% interest plus Rs 25,000 costs, ordered a Joint/Additional Commissioner inquiry within three months to fix responsibility, and left recovery and departmental action open. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This case of blatant violation of human rights shocks the conscience of the Court.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175266892/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608fcb3e4b014971114c81b)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Niraj Mumbai Woman and Others vs \[name withheld\] and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-12-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2013 (2) Bom CR (Cri) 260', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175266892/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608fcb3e4b014971114c81b', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** ~36-hour detention of elderly couple without arrest memo; Rs 2.5L each + inquiry ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0038)

## Smt. Vashi, Navi Mumbai Woman and Another vs Sr. Police Inspector, Vashi and Others (CW-2013-0027)

**Record:** CW-2013-0027 (compiler id CWC-0773); case GAP2-11-002
**Title:** Smt. Vashi, Navi Mumbai Woman and Another vs Sr. Police Inspector, Vashi and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: P. V. Hardas; Mridula Bhatkar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1857 of 2012 / (2014) ALL MR (Cri) 93; (2013) 06 BOM CK 0019
**Judgment:** 2013-06-13 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-01-27 (2012)
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra; city town: Vashi, Navi Mumbai; police station or unit: Vashi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226; CrPC s.151
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Vashi Police Station, Navi Mumbai; Senior Police Inspector, Vashi Police Station, Navi Mumbai (2 in record)
**Victims:** Vashi, Navi Mumbai woman; Vashi, Navi Mumbai man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 6 lakh (Rs 6,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court held that the detention and arrest of elderly petitioner \[name withheld\] and her son \[name withheld\] by Vashi police was illegal and a blatant violation of the Supreme Court's D.K. Basu directives, as they were called to the station on the pretext of registering her complaint, detained, and produced as arrested persons without signed arrest panchanamas, station-diary support, or intimation of rights. The Court directed Rs 3,00,000 compensation to each petitioner within eight weeks with 10% interest on default plus Rs 15,000 costs. The officers' SLP (No.6534 of 2013) against the judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 23 September 2013, as recorded in the Court's 16 October 2015 follow-up judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> However, the fact remains that the authorities have committed a blatant violation of the directives of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu's case and the petition on that score deserves to succeed.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/780492/smt-mohini-naraindas-kamwani-and-another-appellant-hash-sr-police-inspector-and-others-responden/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50987850/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117e702713e1794788cdda)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Smt. Vashi, Navi Mumbai Woman and Another vs Sr. Police Inspector, Vashi and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-06-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 600,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2014) ALL MR (Cri) 93; (2013) 06 BOM CK 0019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/780492/smt-mohini-naraindas-kamwani-and-another-appellant-hash-sr-police-inspector-and-others-responden/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50987850/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117e702713e1794788cdda', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary login-walled; bench/award/SLP-dismissal corroborated by 2015 follow-up judgment; Kale rank corrected to Sr PI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0027)

## Kandhar Man vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. (CW-2013-0008)

**Record:** CW-2013-0008 (compiler id CWC-0246); case MAHARA-004
**Title:** Kandhar Man vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: Naresh H. Patil; A.I.S. Cheema
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1077 of 2012 / (2013) 5 ABR 375; (2013) 3 BomCR(Cri) 601; (2013) ALLMR(Cri) 3038
**Judgment:** 2013-07-08 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-02-02 (2011)
**Place:** Nanded, Maharashtra; city town: Kandhar; police station or unit: Sub-Jail Kandhar, Nanded (guard duty); PS Loha (Crime No. 90/2009); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 226; Constitution Art 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Pandit Manikrao Marwade (Police Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kandhar man, age 21 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** Rs 4.5 lakh (Rs 4,50,000)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Undertrial a Kandhar man (21, Crime No. 90/2009, PS Loha) was shot dead in the Sub-Jail Kandhar lock-up on the night of 2.2.2011 by on-duty Police Constable with his.303 service rifle; Marwade then shot himself dead and an 'A' abetted summary was granted. The State admitted the incident but called it an individual act on grave provocation outside vicarious liability, blaming a Kandhar man's arrogance. The Court rejected that defence, holding the State failed to post sufficient guards or ensure inmate safety and must be held responsible for the custodial death, and directed Rs 4,50,000 compensation with 8% interest from 12.7.2012 plus Rs 10,000 costs, deposited with the District Judge, Nanded (inclusive of the GR 9.3.2012 amount). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The State is liable for contravention of fundamental rights of the victim. No sovereign immunity can be claimed by Respondents. The act of constable Pandit Manikrao Marwade was clearly illegal and a Kandhar man became victim of the same.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79920666/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/818792/kewalbai-appellant-hash-the-state-of-maharashtra-superintendent-of-police-superintendent-of-jail/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Kandhar Man vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-07-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 450,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2013) 5 ABR 375; (2013) 3 BomCR(Cri) 601; (2013) ALLMR(Cri) 3038', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79920666/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/818792/kewalbai-appellant-hash-the-state-of-maharashtra-superintendent-of-police-superintendent-of-jail/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Full judgment text verified via CourtKutchehry mirror (Crl WP 1077/2012, Aurangabad Bench, 8.7.2013, JJ Naresh Patil and A.I.S. Cheema); primary indiankanoon URL rate-limited (HTTP 429). State admitted the shooting; vicarious liability upheld, Rs 4,50,000 plus 8% interest from 12.7.2012 plus Rs 10,000 costs awarded. No prosecution possible as constable Marwade shot himself dead ('A' abetted summary granted 30.8.2011).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0008)

## Rahuri Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2013-0015)

**Record:** CW-2013-0015 (compiler id CWC-0256); case SWILLEGA-039
**Title:** Rahuri Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: K.U. Chandiwal; A.I.S. Cheema
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 964 of 2012 / 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 31
**Judgment:** 2013-10-22 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-08-19 (2012)
**Place:** Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra (district at time: Ahmednagar); city town: Rahuri; police station or unit: Rahuri Police Station / Local Crime Branch, Ahmednagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 151; CrPC 107; Constitution Art 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ashok Rajput (Police Inspector); Vikramsing Pawar (Police Inspector); L. A. Kamble (Investigating Officer (B.No. 1096)); Dagadu Ujagare (Court Constable / Police Head Constable) (4 in record)
**Victims:** Rahuri man, age 47 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad held that Rahuri and Local Crime Branch police illegally arrested and detained agriculturist a Rahuri man from 19 to 22 August 2012, dragging him from court under a sham Section 151 CrPC and Chapter VIII procedure without recording reasons, to torture, humiliate and teach him a lesson. Two inquiry reports supported the petitioner, and the court rejected the officers' belated apology and procedural justification. Holding the detention a gross violation of Article 21 that shocked the conscience of the court, it awarded Rs 3,00,000 compensation payable by the State by 22 December 2013, with liberty to recover from the four guilty officers for their deliberate dereliction of duty. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Our conclusions are: there is apparent, patent incontrovertible violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India; it, indeed, shocks the conscience of the Court.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161582378/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Rahuri Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-10-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2014 ALL MR (Cri) 31', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161582378/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Sham s.151 detention from court premises; Rs 3 lakh award verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0015)

## Pune Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2014-0015)

**Record:** CW-2014-0015 (compiler id CWC-1143); case GAP3-23-001
**Title:** Pune Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: S.C. Dharmadhikari; G.S. Patel
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 499 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2014-01-07 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-01-25 (2012)
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra; city town: Pune; police station or unit: Crime Branch Unit II, Pune; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 50; CrPC 50A; CrPC 56; CrPC 57
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Crime Branch Unit II, Pune; Police Constable, Crime Branch Unit II, Pune (2 in record)
**Victims:** Pune man, age 24 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Sagar Ubhe alleged he was picked up on 25.01.2012 and kept at Crime Branch Unit II, Pune without intimation or magistrate production till 30.01.2012, beaten to extract a confession; police claimed arrest only on 29.01.2012. A JMFC enquiry found illegal detention and tampering of the arrest register date. The court accepted the enquiry report, held the 25-30 January 2012 detention and the subsequent Yerawada re-arrest entirely illegal, and directed the State to pay Rs.5,00,000 compensation within 8 weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Following D. K. Basu, we must, therefore, hold that the detention of the petitioner from 25th January 2012 to 30th January 2012 was entirely illegal, as was his subsequent arrest by the Yerawada police.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148037369/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** Pune Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-01-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 499 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148037369/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held 25-30 Jan 2012 detention entirely illegal; Rs 5 lakh compensation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0015)

## Bhusawal Man & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2014-0029)

**Record:** CW-2014-0029 (compiler id CWC-1144); case GAP3-23-002
**Title:** Bhusawal Man & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: S.S. Shinde; P.R. Bora
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 16 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2014-07-30 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-08-23 (2005)
**Place:** Jalgaon, Maharashtra; city town: Bhusawal; police station or unit: City Police Station, Bhusawal; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 41(2); CrPC 107; CrPC 110; CrPC 111; CrPC 116(3)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Inspector, City Police Station, Bhusawal, Jalgaon; Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Jalgaon (2 in record)
**Victims:** Bhusawal man, age 30; Bhusawal man, age 28 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Two Bhusawal labourers who went to lodge a complaint were instead detained on 23.08.2005, arrested under s.41(2) CrPC in chapter cases under s.110(e)(g), and kept in custody till 27.08.2005 though relatives were ready with sureties. The court held there is no power to arrest on initiation of chapter proceedings, the s.41(2) arrest was unwarranted, and CrPC, constitutional and D.K. Basu safeguards were ignored. It directed the State to pay Rs.10,000 to each petitioner and to hold a departmental inquiry against the two named officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, in the light of the discussion herein above, the arrest of the petitioners on 23rd August, 2005 was illegal.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/147328165/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Bhusawal Man & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-07-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 20,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 16 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/147328165/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held 23 Aug 2005 arrest in chapter proceedings illegal; Rs 10k each + inquiry ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0029)

## Ambad Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2015-0026)

**Record:** CW-2015-0026 (compiler id CWC-1145); case GAP3-24-002
**Title:** Ambad Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: T.V. Nalawade; Indira Jain
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 725 of 2014 / (2015) 3 BomCR(Cri) 494
**Judgment:** 2015-06-09 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-04-12 (2014)
**Place:** Jalna, Maharashtra; city town: Ambad; police station or unit: Ambad Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 22(2); CrPC 41; CrPC 41A; CrPC 167; CrPC 357
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Ambad Police Station, Jalna; Police Inspector, Ambad Police Station, Jalna; Police Head Constable, Ambad Police Station, Jalna (3 in record)
**Victims:** Ambad man, age 31 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. The petitioner, a civil engineer from Airoli (Navi Mumbai), was picked up by Ambad police on 12 April 2014 in a dowry complaint case but produced before the Magistrate only on 14 April 2014, and was also subjected to a forced medical examination. The Division Bench held his detention from 3 p.m. on 13 April to 11 a.m. on 14 April 2014 and the medical examination illegal, in violation of Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution. The court held that compensation in public law for such violations is a strict liability, relying on D.K. Basu and Nilabati Behera. It allowed the writ with Rs 2,00,000 compensation plus Rs 20,000 costs on the State, directed a major-penalty inquiry against ASI with recovery of the payout, and left tort, section 357 CrPC and Arnesh Kumar contempt remedies open. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The detention of the petitioner from 3.00 p.m. of 13.4.2014 to 11.00 a.m. of 14.4.2014 in the custody of respondent No. 2 is held to be illegal, the medical examination of petitioner was also illegal and it was in violation of Articles 21 and 22 (2) of Constitution of India.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132726849/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/826279/satish-vasant-salvi-appellant-hash-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** Order clause (iii)
**display title redacted:** Ambad Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-06-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2015) 3 BomCR(Cri) 494', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132726849/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/826279/satish-vasant-salvi-appellant-hash-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC (Aurangabad) held Ambad-police detention of 13-14 Apr 2014 illegal under Arts 21, 22(2); Rs 2 lakh compensation + costs with major-penalty inquiry and recovery.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2015-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0026)

## Chincholi Kajale, Taluka Ausa Man v. State of Maharashtra (CW-2017-0007)

**Record:** CW-2017-0007 (compiler id CWC-0247); case MAHARA-005
**Title:** Chincholi Kajale, Taluka Ausa Man v. State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: Sunil K. Kotwal; T. V. Nalawade
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 251 of 2007
**Judgment:** 2017-07-31 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-12-19 (2005)
**Place:** Latur, Maharashtra; city town: Chincholi Kajale, Taluka Ausa; police station or unit: Bhada Police Station, Taluka Ausa; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 306; IPC 218; IPC 34; CrPC 41
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Bhada Police Station; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Bhada Police Station; Police Constable, Bhada Police Station; Police Constable, Bhada Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Chincholi Kajale, Taluka Ausa man, age 32 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) allowed the writ petition of Shivabai, holding that her husband \[name withheld\] was illegally detained at Bhada Police Station from 19-12-2005 without arrest record and died in custody on 20-12-2005. The court rejected the police story that he hanged himself in the toilet during a 5-minute load-shedding blackout, finding illegal detention, violation of personal liberty, and dereliction of duty by the police. It directed the State to pay Rs 5,00,000 compensation within two months (9% interest on default) with liberty to recover from the defaulting Bhada staff after inquiry, and noted the pending prosecution of the four officers under Sections 306, 218 read with 34 IPC (Crime No. 16 of 2006). The prosecution in Crime No. 16 of 2006 (Sections 306 and 218 read with 34 IPC) against the respondent officers was pending before the trial court; this writ granted Rs 5 lakh State compensation with recovery from defaulting staff after inquiry, recording no finding against any individual. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus, obviously the detention of husband of the petitioner by Respondent Nos.6 to 9 at Police Station Bhada was illegal and the custodial death of deceased \[name withheld\] resulted only due to high handedness and dereliction of duty by police.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161434986/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Chincholi Kajale, Taluka Ausa Man v. State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-07-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 251 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161434986/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment text verified. Accused are police; adverse finding with compensation. Petition says deceased was 32; post-mortem notes say around 33. Magisterial inquiry (SDM Nilanga) additionally named P.C. N.G. Chavan and H.C. S.P. Bhande as responsible.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2017-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0007)

## Koregaon, Taluka Kaij Man & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2018-0009)

**Record:** CW-2018-0009 (compiler id CWC-0249); case SWCUSTOD-011
**Title:** Koregaon, Taluka Kaij Man & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: S. S. Shinde; V. K. Jadhav
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1451 of 2015 / AIRONLINE 2018 BOM 889
**Judgment:** 2018-08-16 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2015-08-26 (2015)
**Place:** Beed, Maharashtra; city town: Koregaon, Taluka Kaij; police station or unit: Shivajinagar Police Station, Beed; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 22(1)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Shankar P. Rathod (Police Head Constable (Buckle 502)); Police Naik (Badge 1277), Shivajinagar Police Station, Beed; Police Naik (Badge 1490), Shivajinagar Police Station, Beed; Police Constable (Badge 2157), Shivajinagar Police Station, Beed (4 in record)
**Victims:** Koregaon, Taluka Kaij man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) allowed the writ petition, holding there was a clear violation of the D.K. Basu mandate and sufficient material to infer that a Koregaon, Taluka Kaij man was subjected to custodial violence after being picked up on 26-08-2015 and dying the same day in Shivajinagar police custody. The court disbelieved the police story that he jumped from a running police van near Massajog, citing unrecorded detention, no medical examination, no intimation to relatives, and tampered handcuff-register entries. It awarded Rs 5,00,000 compensation (Rs 2 lakh FD for the widow, Rs 50,000 for the father, Rs 50,000 FD for each of five minor children) with liberty to recover from the erring officials, directed registration of a Section 302 read with 34 IPC crime against the four policemen with State CID investigation monitored by the ADG CID Pune, and initiated suo motu contempt against PHC Rathod. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> There is clear violation of mandate laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Basu (supra), as much as prima facie, there is sufficient material to draw inference that deceased \[name withheld\] was subjected to custodial violence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35329061/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Koregaon, Taluka Kaij Man & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-08-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2018 BOM 889', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35329061/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment text verified. Accused are police; adverse finding with compensation. Judgment spells Rathod's middle initial inconsistently (P. in para 21, H. in Order III(a)); recorded as Shankar Rathod. Departmental penalty (2-year increment stoppage for Rathod, \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]) noted from State reply.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2018-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0009)

## Yashwant Mukaji Karade & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra (CW-2018-0011)

**Record:** CW-2018-0011 (compiler id CWC-0240); case SWCUSTOD-010
**Title:** Yashwant Mukaji Karade & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: N.V. Ramana; Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 385-388 of 2008, 299 of 2008 with 182-187 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2018-09-04 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-06-23 (1993)
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra; city town: Nagpur; police station or unit: Crime Branch Nagpur / PS Deolapar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 330
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Crime Branch Nagpur / PS Deolapar; Yashwant Mukaji Karade (Assistant Police Inspector); Rambhau Vitthalrao Kadu (Sub-Inspector); Jahiruddin Bashirmiya Deshmukh (Police Constable); Nilkanth Pandurang Chaurpagar (Police Constable); Namdeo Nathuji Ganeshkar (Police Constable); Ramesh Tukaram Bhoyar (Police Constable); Ashok Bhawani Gulam Shukla (Police Constable); Sudhakar Marotrao Thakre (Police Constable) (9 in record)
**Victims:** Nagpur man, age 42 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 7 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

On the night of 23/24 June 1993 Nagpur policemen dragged Joinus Yellamati from his home at about 1 AM without registering any offence, beat him at multiple locations to extract a confession, and locked him up; he was found dead in the morning. The trial court convicted ten policemen and the High Court sustained only the Section 330 IPC convictions. The Supreme Court dismissed the policemen's appeals, holding the late-night picking-up and torture violated basic constitutional rights, and enhanced the Section 330 sentence from three years to the seven-year maximum for deterrence. The eight surviving convicts were ordered to surrender forthwith to serve the enhanced terms. Accused A-1 \[name withheld\] died after filing the appeal, so his name was struck off and the conviction against him abated; the officer list records the trial conviction, not a subsisting one. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We deem it appropriate to increase the term of sentence to maximum imposable period under Section 330 of IPC i.e., seven years of rigorous imprisonment

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29693305/); [indialegallive.com](https://indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/supreme-court-news/sc-ups-sentence-for-maharashtra-cops-from-3-to-7-years-in-custodial-death-case/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b8eba5b9eff430c43a25751); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/sc-stresses-on-need-to-develop-and-recognize-democratic-policing-concept-enhances-punishment-to-cops-involved-in-custodial-torture-case-read-judgment)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 34
**display title redacted:** Yashwant Mukaji Karade & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 385-388 of 2008, 299 of 2008 with 182-187 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2018-09-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 385-388 of 2008, 299 of 2008 with 182-187 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29693305/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/supreme-court-news/sc-ups-sentence-for-maharashtra-cops-from-3-to-7-years-in-custodial-death-case/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b8eba5b9eff430c43a25751', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/sc-stresses-on-need-to-develop-and-recognize-democratic-policing-concept-enhances-punishment-to-cops-involved-in-custodial-torture-case-read-judgment', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** ACCEPT: SC judgment verified via India Legal, LatestLY and casemine reports; Section 330 IPC convictions of Nagpur policemen upheld and sentence enhanced from 3 to 7 years RI; A-1 \[name withheld\] appeal abated (died); A-10 acquittal undisturbed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0011)

## Nanded Man vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. (CW-2018-0017)

**Record:** CW-2018-0017 (compiler id CWC-0243); case MAHARA-010; aliases: CWC-0530; CWC-0543
**Title:** Nanded Man vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Uday Umesh Lalit; R. Subhash Reddy
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1585 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 6488 of 2016) / (2019) 13 SCC 595; (2018) INSC 1000
**Judgment:** 2018-12-10 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-09-28 (2013)
**Place:** Nanded, Maharashtra; city town: Nanded; police station or unit: Vimantal Police Station, Nanded (Crime No. 104/2013); death in Vajirabad Police Station lock-up; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Vimantal Police Station (Crime No. 104/2013), Nanded (1 in record)
**Victims:** Nanded man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** Rs 7 lakh (Rs 7,00,000)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. A Nanded man died an unnatural death in the Vajirabad Police Station lock-up, Nanded, while in custody in Crime No. 104/2013 of Vimantal Police Station; his parents and daughter obtained Rs 7 lakh compensation from the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench (Crl WP 39/2015, 4.7.2016), which also ordered immediate recovery from the Investigating Officer-in-charge, Amol Kadu. The Supreme Court affirmed that monetary compensation is an appropriate remedy for the established infringement of the fundamental right to life and that the State is vicariously liable on strict liability. It modified only the recovery direction, holding the State may recover from the erring officials once liability for the crime is fastened, and disposed of the appeal in those terms.

> We therefore modify the aforesaid direction of the High Court and state that as and when the liability for the crime in question is fastened, the State shall be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the concerned erring officials.

**Sources (4):** [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2018/december/88.php); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d848ce9714d58266e07f2a8); [pdf.lawlens.in](https://pdf.lawlens.in/2f35b817-bdcc-486e-aff3-999d64a56491); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/183976602/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Nanded Man vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-12-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 700,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2019) 13 SCC 595; (2018) INSC 1000', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2018/december/88.php', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d848ce9714d58266e07f2a8', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://pdf.lawlens.in/2f35b817-bdcc-486e-aff3-999d64a56491', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/183976602/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court judgment text verified via AdvocateKhoj mirror (Criminal Appeal 1585/2018, JJ Lalit and Subhash Reddy, 10.12.2018); appeal disposed of, Rs 7 lakh compensation affirmed on strict State liability, HC's immediate-recovery direction against the IO modified to recovery only after liability is fastened. Accused is police (IO-in-charge). Incident date 2013-09-28 and SCC citation retained from merged input: the SC text restates neither and the underlying HC judgment (Crl WP 39/2015) full text was unreachable (casemine 403).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2018-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0017)

## Mumbai Police personnel v. State of Maharashtra and Others (CW-2019-0025)

**Record:** CW-2019-0025 (compiler id CWC-1146); case GAP3-25-001
**Title:** Mumbai Police personnel v. State of Maharashtra and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: B. P. Dharmadhikari; Revati Mohite Dere
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 4845 of 2015 / AIR Online 2019 Bom 936
**Judgment:** 2019-03-06 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-11-11 (2006)
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: D.N. Nagar / Versova Police Stations; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 364; IPC 365; IPC 368; IPC 344; IPC 201; IPC 119; IPC 120B; CrPC 432
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police; Police personnel, Mumbai Police (11 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man; Mumbai man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. On 11 November 2006, personnel of the D.N. Nagar and Versova police stations abducted Ramnarayan Gupta alias Lakhanbhaiya and \[name withheld\], and Gupta was shot dead in what was projected as an encounter. A Magistrate inquiry under section 176(1A) CrPC concluded the encounter was fake, leading to an SIT, FIR and the conviction of 21 accused including 11 policemen, sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court on 12 July 2013. While their appeals were pending, the State suspended the policemen's sentences for six months under section 432 CrPC and released them. The High Court held the suspension order perverse and bad in law, showing non-application of mind and reliance on irrelevant material, and quashed it, restoring the operation of the life sentences. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Courts cannot be expected to be silent spectators to such decisions, which are blatantly perverse and unsustainable in law.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20913765/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/bombay-hc-state-govts-order-us-432-release-11-cops-conviction-fake-encounter-case-143387)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Mumbai Police personnel v. State of Maharashtra and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR Online 2019 Bom 936', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2019-03-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR Online 2019 Bom 936', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20913765/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/bombay-hc-state-govts-order-us-432-release-11-cops-conviction-fake-encounter-case-143387', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC quashed the 2 Dec 2015 s.432 CrPC suspension of the life sentences of 11 policemen convicted in the Lakhanbhaiya fake encounter; Sessions Court convictions restored.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0025)

## Hingoli Man vs The State of Maharashtra and Others (CW-2019-0013)

**Record:** CW-2019-0013 (compiler id CWC-0707); case GAP4-007; aliases: CWC-1449
**Title:** Hingoli Man vs The State of Maharashtra and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: T.V. Nalawade; Mangesh S. Patil
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 414 of 2010 (with Criminal Application No. 78 of 2012)
**Judgment:** 2019-07-09 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-01-01 (2009)
**Place:** Hingoli, Maharashtra; city town: Hingoli; police station or unit: Local Crime Branch / Rural Police Station, Hingoli; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Hingoli; Superintendent of Police, Hingoli (1 in record)
**Victims:** Hingoli man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. The petitioner, an accused in Crime No. 157/2009 of Hingoli police station, was granted ad-interim anticipatory bail by the High Court, but investigating officer PI \[name withheld\] refused to honour it, arrested him and detained him illegally overnight till production before the Magistrate the next day, who granted bail. On the Court's direction the Additional CJM, Hingoli inquired and reported in November 2018 that there was substance in the illegal-detention allegation against the IO. The Aurangabad Bench allowed the writ, holding the detention by the police machinery breached the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, and awarded Rs. 2,00,000 compensation (12% interest on default), leaving it open to the State to fix responsibility and recover from the erring officials. The wife's companion plea for quashing the FIR was dismissed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Such illegal detention can easily be attributed to the deliberate conduct of the respondent no.3 which surprisingly is being endorsed by the respondent no.2 who is the Superintendent of Police.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39855334/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28719260/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6439b7ceff56960869151242)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Hingoli Man vs The State of Maharashtra and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-07-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 414 of 2010 (with Criminal Application No. 78 of 2012)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39855334/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28719260/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6439b7ceff56960869151242', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; overnight detention in defiance of anticipatory bail held illegal, Rs. 2 lakh awarded.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0013)

## Ahmednagar Man v. State of Maharashtra (CW-2019-0014)

**Record:** CW-2019-0014 (compiler id CWC-0734); case SWILLEGA-093
**Title:** Ahmednagar Man v. State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: T.V. Nalawade; K.K. Sonawane
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 906 of 2018
**Judgment:** 2019-07-11 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-10-26 (2014)
**Place:** Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra (district at time: Ahmednagar); city town: Ahmednagar; police station or unit: Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC s.41; CrPC s.50; CrPC s.167; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Vishal L. Sanas (Police Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ahmednagar man, age 64; Ahmednagar woman, age 54; Ahmednagar woman, age 32 (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Three members of an advocate family were arrested on 26 October 2014 in bailable offences and kept in the Kotwali lockup before being remanded to police custody till 29 October, with bail refused. The Additional Sessions Judge had already held in revision that the arrest, detention and remand order were illegal. The High Court agreed, holding the circumstances showed apparent malice on the part of PSI. It allowed the petition and directed total compensation of Rs 5 lakh to all petitioners together within 45 days, leaving the State free to recover the amount from the officer after due procedure. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The aforesaid circumstances show that there was apparent malice.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31595477/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 33
**display title redacted:** Ahmednagar Man v. State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-07-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 906 of 2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31595477/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC found arrest/detention illegal with apparent malice, awarded Rs 5 lakh; matches outcome.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0014)

## V. B. M. vs The State of Maharashtra (CW-2019-0017)

**Record:** CW-2019-0017 (compiler id CWC-0708); case GAP4-010
**Title:** V. B. M. vs The State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: T.V. Nalawade; K.K. Sonawane
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 651 of 2018 / AIR Online 2019 Bom 1968
**Judgment:** 2019-09-30 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2016-11-26 (2016)
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra; city town: Rahuri; police station or unit: Hinjewadi / Gangapur / Lonikand / Sonai Police Stations; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 394
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Hinjewadi City Police Station, Pune; Police Inspector, Gangapur Police Station, Aurangabad; Police Inspector, Lonikand Police Station, Pune Rural; Police Inspector, Sonai Police Station, Ahmednagar (4 in record)
**Victims:** Rahuri boy, age 15 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. The petitioner, born 3 January 2001 and aged about 15 when robbery cases under Section 394 IPC were registered and when arrested on 26 November 2016, was shown by police as aged 20, remanded to police and magisterial custody on false information, and kept in Yerwada Central Jail as an adult undertrial for 8 months and 25 days across cases in Pune, Aurangabad and Ahmednagar districts. All four police stations filed replies. The Aurangabad Bench held the detention in police and magisterial custody illegal, allowed the petition, and directed Rs. 50,000 compensation within 45 days (8% interest on default). It ordered the police-custody-remand and jail records erased so they are never used against the petitioner in future. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> His age was shown as 20 years by the police. It is contended that by giving false information, PCR and MCR was obtained against him.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5856489/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** V. B. M. vs The State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-09-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR Online 2019 Bom 1968', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5856489/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; minor detained 8+ months as adult on fabricated age, Rs. 50,000 plus record erasure.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 15, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 15-year-old boy'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0017)

## Kannad Man and Another vs The State of Maharashtra and Others (CW-2019-0019)

**Record:** CW-2019-0019 (compiler id CWC-0709); case GAP4-009
**Title:** Kannad Man and Another vs The State of Maharashtra and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: T.V. Nalawade; S.M. Gavhane
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 955 of 2019 / AIR Online 2019 Bom 1128; 2020(1) Bom CR (Cri) 33
**Judgment:** 2019-11-05 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-05-31 (2019)
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra (district at time: Aurangabad); city town: Kannad; police station or unit: Pishor Police Station, Kannad; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 323; IPC 324
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Inspector, Pishor Police Station, Kannad; Police Head Constable, Pishor Police Station, Kannad; Police Head Constable, Pishor Police Station, Kannad; Police Naik, Pishor Police Station, Kannad (4 in record)
**Victims:** Kannad man, age 42; Kannad man, age 23 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. After cross-complaints over a private quarrel on 9 May 2019, Pishor police arrested father-son petitioners a Kannad man (42, labour contractor) and Amol Pawar (23, student) on 31 May 2019 though custodial interrogation was unnecessary for such a minor incident. The petitioners alleged mala fide arrest, illegal detention of at least four hours, assault at the station and illegal handcuffing. The Aurangabad Bench partly allowed the petition, declared the arrest and detention illegal, and directed Rs. 10,000 to petitioner no. 1 and Rs. 15,000 to petitioner no. 2 within 45 days (8% interest on default), granting only nominal compensation on a possible police misconception that Section 324 IPC was non-bailable. It gave the State liberty to recover from the concerned officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It was not that serious incident in which custodial interrogation was necessary.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158433165/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Kannad Man and Another vs The State of Maharashtra and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-11-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR Online 2019 Bom 1128; 2020(1) Bom CR (Cri) 33', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158433165/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; arrest/detention of father-son pair held illegal, Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 15,000 awarded.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0019)

## Newasa Man v. State of Maharashtra and Others (CW-2019-0038)

**Record:** CW-2019-0038 (compiler id CWC-1147); case GAP3-25-002
**Title:** Newasa Man v. State of Maharashtra and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: T. V. Nalawade; S. M. Gavhane
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 25 of 2019
**Judgment:** 2019-11-29 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2018-05-06 (2018)
**Place:** Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra (district at time: Ahmednagar); city town: Newasa; police station or unit: Newasa Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 165; CrPC 166; CrPC 197; Constitution of India Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Newasa Police Station; Police Inspector, Kopargaon Police Station; Police personnel, S.D.P.O. Office, Ahmednagar Rural; Police personnel, Killa Police Station, Malegaon; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Belwandi Police Station, Newasa; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station (13 in record)
**Victims:** Newasa man, age 34 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. At about 2 a.m. on the night of 5-6 May 2018, Newasa police searched the petitioner's house without a search warrant and recovered nothing objectionable; the petitioner alleged an attempt to plant a country-made pistol and threats of false implication. The court found no written record of any secret information and no compliance with section 165 CrPC, though most officers were shown on different duties that night. It held the search illegal, an intrusion into privacy under Article 21 that defamed the entire family. The writ was partly allowed with Rs 25,000 compensation to be deposited by the Government within 45 days (8% interest on delay), with liberty to fix responsibility and recover from the officers; prosecution was not directed as section 197 CrPC sanction would be needed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court holds that the action of the police officers was illegal. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the State is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for such illegal action.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94448930/); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/12/03/bom-hc-illegal-search-is-violation-of-fundamental-right-to-privacy-state-directed-to-pay-compensation-law-on-ss-165-166-crpc-explained/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/search-without-warrant-is-breach-of-right-to-privacy-150449)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Newasa Man v. State of Maharashtra and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-11-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 25 of 2019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94448930/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/12/03/bom-hc-illegal-search-is-violation-of-fundamental-right-to-privacy-state-directed-to-pay-compensation-law-on-ss-165-166-crpc-explained/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/search-without-warrant-is-breach-of-right-to-privacy-150449', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC (Aurangabad) declared the 2 a.m. warrantless night house search of 6 May 2018 illegal and violative of Art 21 privacy; Rs 25,000 compensation with recovery from officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0038)

## Deoli Man and Another vs State of Maharashtra and Others (CW-2019-0010)

**Record:** CW-2019-0010 (compiler id CWC-0255); case MAHARA-015; aliases: CWC-1471
**Title:** Deoli Man and Another vs State of Maharashtra and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur; judges: Z.A. Haq; M.G. Giratkar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 183/2014
**Judgment:** 2019-12-17 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-02-05 (2014)
**Place:** Wardha, Maharashtra; city town: Deoli; police station or unit: Police Station Deoli; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC s.151(1); CrPC Chapter VIII; Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Dhananjay Sayare (Police Inspector); Police Constable, Police Station Deoli, District Wardha (2 in record)
**Victims:** Deoli man, age 57; Deoli man, age 26 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. A Deoli man and his son Dr. Indraprasad Futane, parties to a temple-trust dispute in Deoli, were detained at Deoli police station from 5:00 AM to 12:00 PM on 5 February 2014 under Section 151(1) CrPC before being taken to an Executive Magistrate. The Bombay High Court found that the police officer had no knowledge of any design to commit a cognizable offence and that earlier complaints were non-cognizable, holding the Section 151(1) justification misleading and a cover-up for illegal and motivated detention. Drawing an adverse inference for the non-production and loss of official records, the High Court declared the detention illegal, quashed the Chapter VIII CrPC proceedings, ordered Police Inspector Dhananjay Sayare to pay compensation of Rs 1 lakh to each petitioner personally along with Rs 10,000 costs each, and directed that an entry of the judgment be recorded in the officer's service book. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Depriving a person of his liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be left to the whims and wishes of the police officer, and if it is permitted it would be conferring arbitrary and unbridled powers on the police officers / authorities.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-368892.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/depriving-person-liberty-article-21-whims-of-the-police-officer-bombay-hc-fines-cop-rs1-lakh-for-illegal-detention-151468); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/01/08/bom-hc-police-inspector-to-pay-rs-1-lakh-compensation-to-petitioners-for-high-handed-action-and-illegal-detention-under-s-151-1-crpc/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71877036/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Deoli Man and Another vs State of Maharashtra and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-12-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 183/2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-368892.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/depriving-person-liberty-article-21-whims-of-the-police-officer-bombay-hc-fines-cop-rs1-lakh-for-illegal-detention-151468', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/01/08/bom-hc-police-inspector-to-pay-rs-1-lakh-compensation-to-petitioners-for-high-handed-action-and-illegal-detention-under-s-151-1-crpc/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71877036/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court held preventive detention under s.151(1) CrPC illegal, quashed Chapter VIII CrPC proceedings, ordered PI Dhananjay Sayare to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation per petitioner personally and entered judgment in his service book.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0010)

## Shirdi Boy v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2020-0011)

**Record:** CW-2020-0011 (compiler id CWC-0765); case MAHARA-011; aliases: CWC-0252
**Title:** Shirdi Boy v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: T.V. Nalawade; Shrikant D. Kulkarni
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1548 of 2016
**Judgment:** 2020-11-26 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2016-03-31 (2016)
**Place:** Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra (district at time: Ahmednagar); city town: Shirdi; police station or unit: Shirdi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 22
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik (B.No. 450), Shirdi Police Station; Police Naik (B.No. 1118), Shirdi Police Station; Police Station Officer (B.No. 745), Shirdi Police Station; Police Naik (B.No. 2132), Shirdi Police Station; Police Naik (B.No. 1920), Shirdi Police Station; Policeman, Sai temple security, Shirdi; Police Naik (B.No. 1246), Sai temple security, Shirdi (7 in record)
**Victims:** Shirdi boy, age 16 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) held that about-16-year-old a 16-year-old boy, picked up on suspicion of pick-pocketing at the Sai temple on 31-03-2016 and put in the Shirdi police lock-up without age enquiry, arrest panchnama or intimation to parents, died in the lock-up the same day. The court concluded it was a case of custodial death at the hands of Shirdi police officials in violation of Article 21 and the D.K. Basu safeguards, rejecting the State's denial of liability. It left the homicidal-versus-suicidal question and the Section 302 prayer to the trial court in Crime 235/2016 (charge-sheet filed against five officers). The court directed the State to deposit Rs 5 lakh ex gratia compensation in court within 45 days (8% interest on default) for equal division between the parents, with liberty to recover from the erring officials once liability is fastened. The officers were charge-sheeted in Crime No. 235 of 2016 at Shirdi Police Station; the court left individual guilt and the homicidal-versus-suicidal question to the trial, recording no finding against any individual. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> No enquiry was conducted about the age of \[a 16-year-old boy\], whether he was juvenile and straightway put up him in the lock up which unfortunately resulted into his custodial death.

**Sources (4):** [hindi.livelaw.in](https://hindi.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-385931.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/custodial-death-torture-16yr-old-boy-bombay-high-court-5-lakh-compensation-shirdi-police-cctv-167211); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=310202808300&Title=ASHOK-KONDAJI-ROKADE-Vs.-STATE-OF-MAHARASHTRA); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-385901.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Shirdi Boy v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-11-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 1548 of 2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://hindi.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-385931.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/custodial-death-torture-16yr-old-boy-bombay-high-court-5-lakh-compensation-shirdi-police-cctv-167211', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=310202808300&Title=ASHOK-KONDAJI-ROKADE-Vs.-STATE-OF-MAHARASHTRA', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-385901.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC (Aurangabad) held custodial death at Shirdi PS; Rs 5L ex gratia to parents.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 16, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 16-year-old boy'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2020-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0011)

## Kumshi Man and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others (CW-2020-0012)

**Record:** CW-2020-0012 (compiler id CWC-0627); case WEST---CENTRAL-001
**Title:** Kumshi Man and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: T.V. Nalawade; M.G. Sewlikar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 574 of 2013
**Judgment:** 2020-12-01 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-01-30 (2013)
**Place:** Beed, Maharashtra; city town: Kumshi; police station or unit: Beed Rural Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 323; IPC 324; IPC 504; IPC 506; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Beed Rural Police Station; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Beed Division (2 in record)
**Victims:** Kumshi man, age 33; Kumshi man, age 34 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad) allowed the petition of a Kumshi man (33) and a Kumshi man (34) of Kumshi, holding their six-day detention from 30 January 2013 illegal and awarding Rs 50,000 to each petitioner (Rs 1 lakh total) payable by the State within 45 days (8% interest on default), with liberty to fasten responsibility on the concerned police officer and the then Executive Magistrate and recover. Arrested by Beed Rural police on an FIR under ss. 323/324/504/506/34 IPC and granted bail the same day by the JMFC, they were re-taken in custody and produced before the Executive Magistrate on a bare Section 107 CrPC report, which imposed an onerous interim bond under Section 116(3) CrPC. The Court held the Magistrate's order illegal and without jurisdiction, and found mala fides in the police action intended to keep them behind bars. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> These circumstances show that there were mala fides and the intention of the police was to see that the Petitioners are arrested and they are kept behind bars for a few days.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12872662/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-386444.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/illegal-detention-compensation-bombay-high-court-167687)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Kumshi Man and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-12-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 574 of 2013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12872662/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-386444.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/illegal-detention-compensation-bombay-high-court-167687', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC (Aurangabad) held 6-day detention illegal; Rs 50K each. NOTE: same judgment as CWC-0629 (duplicate candidates).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2020-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0012)

## Burudgaon, Ahmednagar Woman & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2021-0001)

**Record:** CW-2021-0001 (compiler id CWC-0251); case MAHARA-010
**Title:** Burudgaon, Ahmednagar Woman & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: T. V. Nalawade; M. G. Sewlikar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 363 of 2008 with 1658 of 2015
**Judgment:** 2021-01-13 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-05-12 (2007)
**Place:** Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra (district at time: Ahmednagar); city town: Burudgaon, Ahmednagar; police station or unit: Kotwali Police Station and Local Crime Branch, Ahmednagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 306; IPC 330; IPC 331; IPC 341; IPC 343; IPC 201; IPC 109; IPC 166; IPC 193; IPC 34; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Ahmednagar; Police Sub-Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Ahmednagar; Policeman, Local Crime Branch, Ahmednagar; Policeman, Ahmednagar police; Police personnel, Ahmednagar police; Police personnel, Ahmednagar police (7 in record)
**Victims:** Burudgaon, Ahmednagar woman, age 50 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) held that a Burudgaon, Ahmednagar woman, a 50-year-old Pardhi tribal woman illegally picked up on 12-05-2007 without any arrest record, died in police custody after torture at Kotwali Police Station, the LCB office and the Jamkhed rest house to extract information about stolen gold, rejecting the CID suicide-by-poison theory since no poison was detected and nine ante-mortem injuries including a head injury were found. The court held no sanction under Section 197 CrPC was needed as every act was unauthorised and illegal, left it open to the trial court to frame murder charges (Sections 302, 201 read with 120B IPC), and vacated the stay on Sessions Case No. 184 of 2013. It granted Rs 5,00,000 compensation to a Burudgaon, Ahmednagar woman's legal representatives (State to deposit in court within 45 days, 8% default interest, recoverable from the responsible police officers after inquiry). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> So far as relief of compensation claimed by legal representatives of deceased is concerned, aforesaid material is more than sufficient to prove that a Burudgaon, Ahmednagar woman died in the custody of Police.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10612754/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145629790/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** Burudgaon, Ahmednagar Woman & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-01-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 363 of 2008 with 1658 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10612754/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145629790/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment text verified. Accused are police (7 charge-sheeted + 1 private doctor, Dr. Sidhavaram Deepak Subramanyam, excluded from officers). Full accused names/ranks taken from judgment memo and findings; first name '\[name withheld\]' is as printed in source text and may be a transcription error; \[name withheld\] noted as died; ranks null where judgment silent. Input's recall-rejection (Crl. Appln. 1365/2021, 21-08-2021) not re-verified; kept only as secondary source link.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2021-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0001)

## Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. (CW-2021-0009)

**Record:** CW-2021-0009 (compiler id CWC-0244); case SWILLEGA-036; aliases: CWC-1468
**Title:** Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: S.S. Shinde; N.J. Jamadar
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 2754 of 2021
**Judgment:** 2021-11-16 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2021-07-30 (2021)
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra (district at time: Mumbai); city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Deonar Police Station and Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 41A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Police Inspector, Deonar Police Station, Mumbai; Senior Police Inspector, Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai; Police Sub-Inspector, Deonar Police Station, Mumbai (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** Rs 20,000

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. A Mumbai man Shaikh, arrested in a Deonar mobile-theft case (CR 399/2021, IPC 380), was kept in the Shivaji Nagar Police Station lock-up from 30.7.2021 to 5.8.2021 even though the Metropolitan Magistrate (45th Court, Kurla) had expressly declined further police custody and remanded him to judicial custody till 13.8.2021. The Court rejected the police explanation of COVID RTPCR unavailability and non-availability of vehicles as flimsy, holding the constitutional and legal rights of the accused were blatantly violated in flagrant violation of the Magistrate's order. It partly allowed the wife's habeas corpus petition, directed the State to pay Rs 20,000 compensation to the accused within four weeks, and left it open to the State to hold an inquiry, fix liability on the concerned officers and take appropriate action. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The situation which thus obtains is that, the Accused was detained in police custody in flagrant violation of the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to lodge the Accused in prison. The constitutional and legal rights of the Accused were, thus, blatantly violated.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/sadiquabee-mohd-usman-shaik-v-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-404400.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/bombay-high-court-illegal-custody-orders-compensation-rights-of-accused-habeas-corpus-petition-185919); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/13923813/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-11-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 20,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 2754 of 2021', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/sadiquabee-mohd-usman-shaik-v-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-404400.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/bombay-high-court-illegal-custody-orders-compensation-rights-of-accused-habeas-corpus-petition-185919', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/13923813/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Full 20-page judgment text verified from LiveLaw PDF (WP 2754/2021, pronounced 16.11.2021, Coram S.S. Shinde and N.J. Jamadar). Pre-remand illegal-detention allegation (26-28.7.2021) was rejected, but five days' post-remand police lock-up detention (30.7.2021-5.8.2021) in defiance of the Magistrate's judicial-remand order was held proved; Rs 20,000 compensation with liberty to hold inquiry and fix liability. Accused are police.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2021-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0009)

## Latur Man & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (CW-2022-0022)

**Record:** CW-2022-0022 (compiler id CWC-0257); case MAHARA-017
**Title:** Latur Man & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: Mangesh S. Patil; Abhay S. Waghwase
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1482 of 2017 with Criminal Application No. 711 of 2018
**Judgment:** 2022-11-11 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2017-10-15 (2017)
**Place:** Latur, Maharashtra; city town: Latur; police station or unit: MIDC Police Station, Latur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 384
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik (lock-up guard), MIDC Police Station, Latur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Latur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) held that businessman \[name withheld\], in his early forties and in MIDC (Latur) police custody on remand till 16-10-2017, died after the lock-up guard negligently handed phenyl directly to him in the lock-up on 15-10-2017, which he consumed and for which he died during treatment. The court found the police machinery indirectly responsible for a death in its custody and liable to compensate as an instrumentality of the Government. It declined CBI transfer since the CID/DySP probe was continuing, and rejected the Rs 2 crore claim. It awarded Rs 10 lakh compensation to the widow and minor son (Rs 2.5 lakh each in fixed deposit, Rs 5 lakh to the widow within three months), holding the brother and mother not entitled. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> when death has taken place while in custody of police, such machinery, though indirectly, is responsible for the death

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199436558/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85471650/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Latur Man & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-11-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 1482 of 2017 with Criminal Application No. 711 of 2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199436558/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85471650/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC (Aurangabad) held death in MIDC Latur custody from guard negligence; Rs 10L. Corrected: phenyl, not acid.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0022)

## Vilas Shantaram Kaldhone v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (CW-2022-0033)

**Record:** CW-2022-0033 (compiler id CWC-0775); case GAP2-12-003
**Title:** Vilas Shantaram Kaldhone v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Sarang V. Kotwal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2018
**Judgment:** 2022-11-23 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-05-07 (2014)
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai (Sion); police station or unit: Sion Police Station (C.R. No. 155/2014); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 377; IPC 506 Part I; POCSO Act s.4
**Officers (gated display forms):** Vilas Shantaram Kaldhone (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai boy, age 17 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. On 7 May 2014 a 17-year-old boy who had left home after a quarrel accepted a motorcycle lift near Shanmukhananda Hall, Sion, from Vilas Kaldhone, who said he was police personnel; Kaldhone took him to a building terrace and sexually assaulted him at knifepoint. PW-10 deposed that Kaldhone was a constable who had been suspended from service much before the incident. The trial court convicted him under Section 377 IPC, Section 506 Part I IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act with 10-year concurrent terms on 12 April 2018. The court held the DNA match on the victim's underwear clinching, rejected the defence claim of semen collection at the police station, and maintained the conviction while reducing the substantive sentences to the 8-plus years already undergone, above the then 7-year POCSO minimum, citing good jail conduct. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> All these factors considered together or even separately, point unerringly to the guilt of the appellant. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/bombay-hc-2-447515.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/bombay-high-court-pocso-case-conviction-former-cop-dna-evidence-medical-evidence-215776); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/reduction-of-sentence-constable-sexual-assault-minor-boy-good-behaviour-in-jail-1451270)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** Vilas Shantaram Kaldhone v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2022-11-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/bombay-hc-2-447515.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/bombay-high-court-pocso-case-conviction-former-cop-dna-evidence-medical-evidence-215776', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/reduction-of-sentence-constable-sexual-assault-minor-boy-good-behaviour-in-jail-1451270', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Suspended constable's POCSO/s.377 conviction upheld on DNA and medical evidence; sentence cut to time undergone.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0033)

## CISF Constable/Driver v. Union of India & Ors. (CW-2023-0035)

**Record:** CW-2023-0035 (compiler id CWC-1119); case GAP3-134-001
**Title:** CISF Constable/Driver v. Union of India & Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Ajay Rastogi; Bela M. Trivedi
**Case number / citation:** SLP (Civil) No. 10499 of 2022 / 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44
**Judgment:** 2023-01-16 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-01-01 (2007)
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: CISF Unit, CSIA, Mumbai; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** CISF Rules 2001 Rule 36; CISF Rules 2001 Rule 54; IPC 323; IPC 324; IPC 341
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable/Driver, CISF (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. The petitioner was appointed constable/driver in the CISF on 3 November 2007 but suppressed a pending criminal case (FIR No. 153 of 2003, under Sections 323, 324 and 341 IPC) in his entry-time character-verification certificate. The Commandant initially imposed reduction of pay by one stage; the DIG Headquarters Navi Mumbai suo motu revised the lenient penalty under Rule 54 and ordered a fresh inquiry, which ended in removal from service on 9 March 2010, upheld in departmental appeal and revision. A Single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court twice set aside the removal, but the Division Bench restored it on 16 November 2021. The Supreme Court held suppression of criminal antecedents at entry into a disciplined force is gross misconduct, found the removal followed due process without mala fides, declined to interfere under Article 136 and dismissed the SLP. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner having been found to have committed gross misconduct right at the threshold of entering into disciplined force like CISF, and the respondent authorities having passed the order of his removal from service after following due process of law and without actuated by malafides, the court is not inclined to exercise its limited jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45959979/); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/1512120225150141000judgement16-jan-2023watermark-1458791.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** CISF Constable/Driver v. Union of India & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-01-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45959979/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/1512120225150141000judgement16-jan-2023watermark-1458791.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC dismissed SLP; removal of CISF constable for suppressing criminal case at entry upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0035)

## Manegaon, Taluka Madha Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2023-0001)

**Record:** CW-2023-0001 (compiler id CWC-0250); case MAHARA-009; aliases: CWC-1427
**Title:** Manegaon, Taluka Madha Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: Vibha Kankanwadi; Abhay S. Waghwase
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1647 of 2019
**Judgment:** 2023-01-18 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2018-11-04 (2018)
**Place:** Solapur, Maharashtra; city town: Manegaon, Taluka Madha; police station or unit: Manegaon Outpost, Police Station Madha, Solapur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302 r/w 34; Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Dashrath Vishwanath Kumbhar (Police Head Constable); Deepak Raman Kshirsagar (Police Head Constable) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Manegaon, Taluka Madha man, age 23 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** Rs 15.3 lakh (Rs 15,29,600)

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) held that the death of 23-year-old Pradip Kute on 04-11-2018 was a homicidal custodial death at the hands of two head constables of the Manegaon outpost, who intercepted his sugarcane tractor over a loudly played tape recorder and beat him with sticks, kicks and fists. Relying on the Section 176(1)(a) CrPC magisterial inquiry report, 43 ante-mortem injuries in the post-mortem, and consistent eyewitnesses, the court rejected the defence of brain disease and post-mortem injuries. It awarded Rs 15,29,600 compensation to the mother (Rs 13,29,600 dependency plus Rs 2,00,000 for police atrocities), payable by the State within two months with 6% default interest and recoverable from the two constables, with Rs 10 lakh to be invested for five years; the criminal trial (Crime No. 218/2018) was noted as pending.

> It will be open to the State to recover the amount, so paid to the petitioner from respondent Nos.4 and 5, as they have been revealed to be the persons responsible for the death of a Manegaon, Taluka Madha man

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161546163/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/injuries-need-not-occur-inside-police-station-for-custodial-death-bombay-high-court-grants-15-lakh-to-victims-mother-in-police-brutality-case-219553); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/custodial-death-power-of-police-to-regulate-crime-not-unfettered-cant-treat-citizens-in-inhuman-manner-bombay-high-court); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/ordjud-22-454895.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13 (order cl. 4)
**display title redacted:** Manegaon, Taluka Madha Man v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-01-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,529,600.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Writ Petition No. 1647 of 2019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161546163/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/injuries-need-not-occur-inside-police-station-for-custodial-death-bombay-high-court-grants-15-lakh-to-victims-mother-in-police-brutality-case-219553', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/custodial-death-power-of-police-to-regulate-crime-not-unfettered-cant-treat-citizens-in-inhuman-manner-bombay-high-court', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/ordjud-22-454895.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment text verified. Accused are police; adverse finding with compensation. Petitioner resides in Osmanabad district but incident/Out Post are in Solapur, so district is Solapur. Victim's wife \[name withheld\] died 21-06-2020 per judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0001)

## Beed Man & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (CW-2023-0004)

**Record:** CW-2023-0004 (compiler id CWC-0254); case MAHARA-013
**Title:** Beed Man & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: Anuja Prabhudessai; R.M. Joshi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1464 of 2015 / 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 562
**Judgment:** 2023-03-02 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-02-27 (2012)
**Place:** Beed, Maharashtra; city town: Beed; police station or unit: Police guard on duty, Government Hospital, Beed / Beed District Jail; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Guard, Police guard on duty, Government Hospital Beed; Police Guard, Police guard on duty, Government Hospital Beed; Jail staff, Beed District Jail (1 in record)
**Victims:** Beed man, age 32 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) held there was total negligence by the Beed jail authorities and the on-duty police guard in denying medical care to 32-year-old undertrial a Beed man, who complained of chest pain from early February 2012 but was shifted to hospital only on 23-02-2012 and died on 27-02-2012. The court found the police guard declined to shift him to Government Medical College, Aurangabad despite medical advice, violating his Article 21 right to health. Rejecting the State's denial of negligence, it awarded Rs 10 lakh compensation to the parents, widow and two minor children, payable within four weeks (6% interest on default), with liberty to recover from the negligent officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> there has been total negligence and lapse on the part of the jail authorities in providing adequate, effective and proper medical treatment and on the part of the police guard on duty who declined to shift the deceased \[name withheld\] to Government Medical College, Aurangabad which has resulted in his death.

**Sources (3):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/ordjud-3wk-1477892.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/bombay-hc-rs-10-lakh-compensation-undertrial-prisoner-1466333); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/03/14/deceased-denied-medical-treatment-in-jail-bombay-hc-awards-compensation-legal-research-legal-news-updates/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Beed Man & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-03-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023 SCC OnLine Bom 562', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/ordjud-3wk-1477892.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/bombay-hc-rs-10-lakh-compensation-undertrial-prisoner-1466333', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/03/14/deceased-denied-medical-treatment-in-jail-bombay-hc-awards-compensation-legal-research-legal-news-updates/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC (Aurangabad) held jail + police-guard negligence caused undertrial's death; Rs 10L awarded.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0004)

## Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra and Others (CW-2023-0028)

**Record:** CW-2023-0028 (compiler id CWC-0588); case SWILLEGA-004
**Title:** Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Revati Mohite Dere; Gauri Godse
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 2436 of 2023 / 2023:BHC-AS:28590-DB
**Judgment:** 2023-09-29 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2023-07-17 (2023)
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Tardeo Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC s.41A; CrPC s.436; IPC s.354A; IPC s.509; Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Police Inspector, Tardeo Police Station, Mumbai; Police Sub-Inspector, Tardeo Police Station, Mumbai (2 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Music teacher a Mumbai man was detained at Tardeo Police Station on 17 July 2023 and transferred overnight to Saat Rasta Lock-up in connection with C.R. No. 310/2023 registered under Sections 354A and 509 IPC, both bailable offences. Despite Sampat having complied with Section 41A CrPC notices and his advocate tendering a written request to furnish bail under Section 436 CrPC, police refused bail, stripped him in the lock-up, and released him on a personal bond only after his wife moved a habeas corpus petition before the High Court on 18 July 2023. A division bench of the Bombay High Court held that the overnight detention was entirely illegal and in brazen violation of Article 21, Section 436 CrPC, and Supreme Court arrest guidelines. The Court directed the State Government to pay Rs 2,00,000 compensation to the victim, ordered the Commissioner of Police to appoint a DCP-rank officer to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of officers at Tardeo Police Station and Saat Rasta Lock-up within eight weeks, and ordered that the compensation amount be recovered from the salaries of the officers found responsible. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is thus clearly evident from the aforesaid facts, that the petitioner's husband-a Mumbai man was detained illegally by the police from around 9:30 p.m on 17th July 2023, till 1:00 p.m. on 18th July 2023, till the time, the police learnt of the petition filed in this Court.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172112741/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/bombay-high-court-2-lakhs-compensation-music-teacher-illegally-detained-police)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-09-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023:BHC-AS:28590-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172112741/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/bombay-high-court-2-lakhs-compensation-music-teacher-illegally-detained-police', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court held overnight lock-up detention in bailable offences illegal and violative of Art. 21 and s.436 CrPC, awarded Rs 2 lakh compensation to victim, and ordered recovery from erring officers after DCP inquiry.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0028)

## \[name withheld\] & Ors. Maharashtra Resident & Anr. (CW-2024-0029)

**Record:** CW-2024-0029 (compiler id CWC-0912); case GAP2-60-002
**Title:** \[name withheld\] & Ors. Maharashtra Resident & Anr.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Vikram Nath; Satish Chandra Sharma
**Case number / citation:** SLP (Crl.) Nos. 14585/2023, 14572/2023, 14734-14735/2023, 15433/2023, 15294/2023 / 2024 INSC 75; 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 77
**Judgment:** 2024-01-30 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-03-09 (2022)
**Place:** Maharashtra; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Maharashtra Police; Police personnel, Maharashtra Police; Police personnel, Maharashtra Police; Police personnel, Maharashtra Police; Police personnel, Maharashtra Police; Police personnel, Maharashtra Police (6 in record)
**Victims:** Maharashtra resident; Maharashtra resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** fine; Rs 12 lakh (Rs 12,00,000)
**Sentence type:** fine (fine)

Two tenants were called to the local police station on 9 March 2022, held for about 24 hours, and coerced to sign vacation documents while their premises were demolished by the vendor family with local police support. Their Section 156(3) complaints were sent for registration by the Sessions Court and sustained by the High Court. During Supreme Court proceedings the tenants settled with the private purchasers for Rs. 10 lakh each. The Court held continuance of the complaints futile but refused to let the six named police personnel go scot-free given their apparent role in conspiring and abetting the detention, coercion and demolition, imposing graded personal costs totalling Rs. 6 lakh per case to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund as a condition for quashing. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> However, what we are not satisfied with is why the police personnel have been allowed to go scot-free in a case where they had an apparent roll in conspiring and in abetting the crime of the illegal detention of the tenants, coercing them to sign the document against their will, and getting the premises in question demolished without any order from a competent Court.

**Sources (3):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/shatrughna-atmaram-v-vinod-dodhuwatermark-1584202.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159752479/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-asks-6-maharashtra-police-officers-to-pay-rs-6-lakhs-cost-to-tenants-who-were-illegally-evicted-248253)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] & Ors. Maharashtra Resident & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-01-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2024 INSC 75; 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 77', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/shatrughna-atmaram-v-vinod-dodhuwatermark-1584202.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159752479/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-asks-6-maharashtra-police-officers-to-pay-rs-6-lakhs-cost-to-tenants-who-were-illegally-evicted-248253', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC recorded police role in illegal detention/demolition and imposed Rs.12L costs; district and rank mapping not in judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0029)

## Paithan Man vs The State of Maharashtra and Others (CW-2024-0026)

**Record:** CW-2024-0026 (compiler id CWC-0710); case GAP2-002
**Title:** Paithan Man vs The State of Maharashtra and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; bench: Aurangabad
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2600 of 2019 / 2024 INSC 232
**Judgment:** 2024-03-18 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2015-06-14 (2015)
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra (district at time: Aurangabad); city town: Paithan; police station or unit: Paithan Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Paithan Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Paithan man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. A Paithan man, a Scheduled Caste man arrested on 14 June 2015 in a theft case, alleged illegal detention, assault and abuse by Police Inspector of Paithan Police Station. A Commission inquiry found excesses, and the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) directed the officer to pay Rs. 75,000 from his own pocket. The Supreme Court upheld that judgment and recorded its own finding that the officer, being in a position of power, totally abused his official position. It held him liable for a further Rs. 1,00,000 (paid during proceedings), refraining from directing criminal prosecution only because he had superannuated and paid compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A zero-tolerance approach towards such high-handed acts needs to be adopted as such acts, committed by persons in power against an ordinary citizen, who is in a non-bargaining position, bring shame to the entire justice delivery system.

**Sources (2):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2024-insc-232-1603200.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/somnath-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-2024-insc-232-high-handed-acts-police-ordinary-citizen-shame-justice-delivery-system-1527596)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Paithan Man vs The State of Maharashtra and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-03-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2024 INSC 232', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2024-insc-232-1603200.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/somnath-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-2024-insc-232-high-handed-acts-police-ordinary-citizen-shame-justice-delivery-system-1527596', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** 2024 INSC 232 verified via Verdictum; SC finding of abuse of power with added Rs. 1 lakh from officer's pocket.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0026)

## Ramprasad Versova, Mumbai Man vs Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma and Anr. (CW-2024-0004)

**Record:** CW-2024-0004 (compiler id CWC-0241); case SWFAKEEN-009; aliases: CWC-0950
**Title:** Ramprasad Versova, Mumbai Man vs Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma and Anr.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Revati Mohite Dere; Gauri Godse
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 854 of 2013 and 350 of 2015 with connected appeals / 2024:BHC-AS:13217-DB; 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
**Judgment:** 2024-03-19 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-11-11 (2006)
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra; city town: Versova, Mumbai; police station or unit: D.N. Nagar / Versova Police Stations; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 302; IPC 364; IPC 365; IPC 368; IPC 344; IPC 201; IPC 119; IPC 109; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma (Police Inspector); Nitin Gorakhnath Sartape (Assistant Police Inspector); Sandip Hemraj Sardar (Police Constable); Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai (Police Constable); Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi (Police Inspector); Ratnakar Gautam Kamble (Police Constable); Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde (Police Constable); Devidas Gangaram Hari Sakpal (Police Constable); Anand Balaji Patade (Police Sub-Inspector); Dilip Sitaram Palande (Assistant Police Inspector); Pandurang Ganpat Kokam (Police Naik); Ganesh Ankush Harpude (Police Sub-Inspector); Prakash Ganpat Kadam (Head Constable) (13 in record)
**Victims:** Versova, Mumbai man, age 33; Versova, Mumbai man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

On 11 November 2006 a Mumbai Police squad led by encounter-specialist PI \[name withheld\] abducted Ramnarayan Gupta (Lakhan Bhaiya) and \[name withheld\] at Vashi, held them at Bhandup and D.N. Nagar police station, and shot Gupta dead in a staged encounter at Nana Nani Park, Versova, registering it as genuine (CR 302/2006). The trial court convicted 21 accused but acquitted Sharma; star witness \[name withheld\] was abducted and murdered in March 2011 before deposing. The Bombay High Court held the encounter fabricated on ballistic, CDR and false-record evidence, reversed Sharma's acquittal and sentenced him to life with concurrent terms, upheld the life sentences of 12 other policemen and one civilian, and acquitted six private accused for want of proof. Sharma's appeal was later admitted by the Supreme Court, which refused to suspend the conviction.

> We, in the facts, find that it is not possible to take any other view than the view taken by us, having regard to the overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution. Thus, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution even qua OA1 form a chain, which is so complete and which unerringly points to the guilt of OA1 and excludes any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the OA1.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86153079/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-mumbai-police-encounter-specialist-pradeep-sharma-acquittal-fake-encounter-case-lakhan-bhaiya-252769); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/bombay-high-court-overturns-acquittal-former-cop-pradeep-sharma-fake-encounter-case)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 488-489
**display title redacted:** Ramprasad Versova, Mumbai Man vs Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Audit fix: duplicate record CW-2024-0033 (same court, case number and judgment date) merged into this record; its sources are kept here and its URL redirects here.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-03-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2024:BHC-AS:13217-DB; 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 151', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-04-08', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 8 April 2024, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: Anand Balaji Patade, \[name withheld\], Devidas Gangaram Hari Sakpal, Dilip Sitaram Palande, Ganesh Ankush Harpude, Nitin Gorakhnath Sartape, Pandurang Ganpat Kokam, Pradeep Pandurang Suryawanshi, Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma, \[name withheld\], Prakash Ganpat Kadam, Ratnakar Gautam Kamble, Sandip Hemraj Sardar, Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai, Vinayak Balasaheb Shinde); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/fake-encounter-case-supreme-court-exempts-ex-mumbai-cop-pradeep-sharma-from-surrender-till-next-hearing-date-admits-appeal-against-conviction-254611', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-25
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2024-04-08', 'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/fake-encounter-case-supreme-court-exempts-ex-mumbai-cop-pradeep-sharma-from-surrender-till-next-hearing-date-admits-appeal-against-conviction-254611', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86153079/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-mumbai-police-encounter-specialist-pradeep-sharma-acquittal-fake-encounter-case-lakhan-bhaiya-252769', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bombay HC convicted encounter-specialist Sharma (life) and upheld life terms of 12 other police in staged encounter.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2024-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0004)

## The State of Maharashtra vs Mumbai Police Senior Police Inspector (CW-2024-0034)

**Record:** CW-2024-0034 (compiler id CWC-0953); case MAHARA-008
**Title:** The State of Maharashtra vs Mumbai Police Senior Police Inspector
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Revati Mohite Dere; Gauri Godse
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 854 of 2013, 350 of 2015 and connected appeals / 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
**Judgment:** 2024-03-19 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-11-11 (2006)
**Place:** Mumbai, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Mumbai Police (Versova PS C.R. No. 246/2009, encounter team); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 120B; IPC 364; IPC 365
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Police Inspector, Mumbai Police; Police Inspector, Mumbai Police; Police Inspector, Mumbai Police; Police Constable, Mumbai Police; Various, Mumbai Police (names in 867-page judgment) (13 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man, age 33 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. A Mumbai man, 33, was abducted with friend \[name withheld\] on 11 November 2006 and killed the same day in a staged shooting near Nana Nani Park, Versova, in an encounter the SIT said was led by Senior Inspector in conspiracy with the victim's business rival. The trial court convicted 21 accused but acquitted Sharma; the Division Bench reversed Sharma's acquittal on circumstantial evidence and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The court upheld 13 other life sentences including 12 police personnel, acquitted six civilians, and called the unsolved murder of eyewitness \[name withheld\] a travesty of justice. Sharma's Supreme Court appeal was admitted with interim exemption from surrender, and suspension of his conviction was later refused.

> It is extremely unfortunate, that a prime eye-witness in this case, \[name withheld\], lost his life before his evidence could be recorded and till date, the perpetrators of \[name withheld\], have not been booked and are obviously looming large.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100702859/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-mumbai-police-encounter-specialist-pradeep-sharma-acquittal-fake-encounter-case-lakhan-bhaiya-252769); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/lakhan-bhaiya-judgement-march-19-529456.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 420
**display title redacted:** The State of Maharashtra vs Mumbai Police Senior Police Inspector
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-03-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 151', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-04-08', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 8 April 2024, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/fake-encounter-case-supreme-court-exempts-ex-mumbai-cop-pradeep-sharma-from-surrender-till-next-hearing-date-admits-appeal-against-conviction-254611', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2024-04-08', 'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/fake-encounter-case-supreme-court-exempts-ex-mumbai-cop-pradeep-sharma-from-surrender-till-next-hearing-date-admits-appeal-against-conviction-254611', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100702859/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-mumbai-police-encounter-specialist-pradeep-sharma-acquittal-fake-encounter-case-lakhan-bhaiya-252769', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/lakhan-bhaiya-judgement-march-19-529456.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** ACCEPT: HC judgment verified via LiveLaw reports (2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 151, JJ Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse); Sharma acquittal reversed to life term, 13 life terms upheld (12 police personnel); SC admitted Sharma appeal with interim non-surrender but refused suspension of conviction, so conviction stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2024-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0034)

## Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra (CW-2024-0013)

**Record:** CW-2024-0013 (compiler id CWC-0632); case WEST---CENTRAL-004
**Title:** Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Revati Mohite Dere; Prithviraj Chavan
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1197/2022 / 2024:BHC-AS:34257-DB
**Judgment:** 2024-08-22 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-01-15 (2022)
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Vakola Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 384; IPC 506
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police officers (arresting officers), Vakola Police Station, Mumbai (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Thane journalist Abhijit Padale was arrested on 15 January 2022 within hours of an FIR under ss. 384/506 IPC, without service of the section 41A notice and without recorded reasons, and remained in custody till bail on 18 January 2022. The court found the arrest mechanical and in stark violation of the CrPC mandate and Arnesh Kumar guidelines, unnecessarily curtailing his liberty. It declared the arrest illegal, awarded Rs 25,000 compensation recoverable from the officers found responsible, and ordered a DCP-rank departmental enquiry. The petitioner is a journalist; the offences carried maximum sentences below seven years. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As the Police failed to follow the mandate of the Cr.P.C. and obey the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the arrest of the Petitioner was not legal.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/abhijit-padale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-557955.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/no-person-can-be-arrested-merely-on-basis-of-allegations-of-committing-some-crime-bombay-high-court-on-illegal-arrest-of-journalist-267831)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-08-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2024:BHC-AS:34257-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/abhijit-padale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-557955.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/no-person-can-be-arrested-merely-on-basis-of-allegations-of-committing-some-crime-bombay-high-court-on-illegal-arrest-of-journalist-267831', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified via LiveLaw report and PDF; corrected second judge to Prithviraj Chavan (agent said Shyam C. Chandak); Rs 25,000 for illegal arrest.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0013)

## Gondia Police Police Constable and others v. State of Maharashtra (CW-2024-0017)

**Record:** CW-2024-0017 (compiler id CWC-0767); case MAHARA-006; aliases: CWC-0248
**Title:** Gondia Police Police Constable and others v. State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: C. T. Ravikumar; Sanjay Kumar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 1614-1618 of 2012 / 2024 INSC 734
**Judgment:** 2024-09-25 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-12-15 (1995)
**Place:** Gondia, Maharashtra (district at time: Bhandara); city town: Gondia; police station or unit: Gondia City Police Station (Detective Branch Room), Gondia; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 348; IPC 387; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable, Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable, Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable, Gondia City Police Station; Police Sub-Inspector, Gondia City Police Station; Head Constable, Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable, Gondia City Police Station (7 in record)
**Victims:** Gondia man; Gondia woman; Gondia woman; Gondia woman; Gondia woman; Gondia woman (6 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court (2-judge bench, split verdict) confirmed the finding of custodial torture of a Gondia man @ a Gondia man and upheld the conviction and sentence of four Gondia City policemen (A2 \[name withheld\], A4 \[name withheld\], A3 \[name withheld\], A5 \[name withheld\]) under Sections 330, 348 and 387 read with 34 IPC (one year rigorous imprisonment plus Rs 1,000 fine on each count). The majority (Ravikumar J.) acquitted them of Sections 304 Part II, 331, 201, 202, 203 and 218 IPC for want of proof of homicidal death, holding the recovered burnt body was never proved to be a Gondia man's and the fingerprint identification was guesswork. Sanjay Kumar J. dissented, holding the policemen staged a false escape drama and concocted records, and voted to maintain all convictions and dismiss all appeals; A1 \[name withheld\]'s appeal was held abated on his death (dissent noted no record of death).

> In view of confirmation of the finding on custodial torture their conviction and consequential sentence under Section 330, 348 and 387 read with Section 34, IPC is to be confirmed.

**Sources (5):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199957261/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/708824/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1409555/); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/manik-v-the-state-of-maharashtrawatermark-1655838.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-delivers-split-verdict-on-police-officers-convictions-in-decades-old-custodial-death-case-270702)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 50
**display title redacted:** Gondia Police Police Constable and others v. State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2024 INSC 734', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-09-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2024 INSC 734', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-09-25', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 25 September 2024, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-delivers-split-verdict-on-police-officers-convictions-in-decades-old-custodial-death-case-270702', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2024-09-25', 'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-delivers-split-verdict-on-police-officers-convictions-in-decades-old-custodial-death-case-270702', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199957261/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/708824/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1409555/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/manik-v-the-state-of-maharashtrawatermark-1655838.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-delivers-split-verdict-on-police-officers-convictions-in-decades-old-custodial-death-case-270702', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary SC judgment plus impugned HC judgment (12-07-2011) both verified. Accused are police; custodial-torture convictions upheld so conviction_upheld stands. Incident span 15-22 Dec 1995 per HC charge. Name/rank spellings corrected per HC accused memo (Aglawe, Ratiram, Dongare; \[name withheld\] is PC not HC). A2 buckle omitted: HC memo repeats 409 for both A2 and A3 (apparent typo). compensation_inr null: SC awarded none; input's Rs 74,000x5 HC compensation (Cri WP 293/2002) is a separate judgment, not re-verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0017)

## Hingoli Man v. State of Maharashtra and Others (CW-2024-0018)

**Record:** CW-2024-0018 (compiler id CWC-0614); case SWILLEGA-035
**Title:** Hingoli Man v. State of Maharashtra and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: Vibha Kankanwadi; S.G. Chapalgaonkar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Application No. 2908 of 2024 / 2024:BHC-AUG:26094-DB
**Judgment:** 2024-10-23 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-08-06 (2024)
**Place:** Hingoli, Maharashtra; city town: Hingoli; police station or unit: City Police Station, Hingoli; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 500; IT Act 66A; IT Act 66B; IT Act 67A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector / Investigating Officer, City Police Station, Hingoli; Police Constable (complainant in personal capacity), Hingoli (2 in record)
**Victims:** Hingoli man, age 43 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

…arrested at 00:31 hrs on 06-08-2024 with sections swapped at production (report to delete ss.66-A/66-B and add s.67-A before the Magistrate); the Court held the IO applied no mind to which sections were invoked and recorded no reason for the arrest…. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is beyond imagination that before the arrest the Investigating Officer will not apply his mind, as to which are the sections those are invoked, what is the punishment, that is, prescribed and whether he can make a legal arrest in such situations?

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/ashwinkumar-sanap-vs-state-of-maharashtra-569605.pdf); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/amp/news-updates/bombay-high-court-asks-maharashtra-police-pay-2-lakhs-man-who-was-illegally-detained); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/bombay-high-court-ashwinkumar-pandhari-sanapv-state-of-maharashtra-2024bhc-aug26094-db-section-66a-section-66b-information-technology-act-1557235)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Hingoli Man v. State of Maharashtra and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-10-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 250,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2024:BHC-AUG:26094-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/ashwinkumar-sanap-vs-state-of-maharashtra-569605.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/amp/news-updates/bombay-high-court-asks-maharashtra-police-pay-2-lakhs-man-who-was-illegally-detained', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/bombay-high-court-ashwinkumar-pandhari-sanapv-state-of-maharashtra-2024bhc-aug26094-db-section-66a-section-66b-information-technology-act-1557235', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: s.66A arrest illegal; FIR quashed; Rs.2.5 lakh personal compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0018)

## Mrs. Ratna Mumbai Man and Another vs \[name withheld\], API, Wadala TT Police Station and Others (CW-2024-0043)

**Record:** CW-2024-0043 (compiler id CWC-0776); case GAP2-12-001
**Title:** Mrs. Ratna Mumbai Man and Another vs \[name withheld\], API, Wadala TT Police Station and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Bharati Dangre; Manjusha Deshpande
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 4471 of 2012 / 2024:BHC-AS:44106-DB
**Judgment:** 2024-10-23 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-12-01 (2012)
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Bombay Police Act 1951 s.79; Bombay Police Act 1951 s.115; Bombay Police Act 1951 s.117; Bombay Police Act 1951 s.33; Bombay Police Act 1951 s.131
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Inspector, Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station, Mumbai (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court held the arrest of petitioner2 by API \[name withheld\] of Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station completely unwarranted, as the s.115 nuisance offence was not committed in the officer's presence so the s.79 arrest power could not be exercised, and the s.117 fine can only be imposed on conviction, not collected by a police officer. The Court called the arrest a classic example of abuse and misuse of police powers and noted the department had punished Jadhav with only a Rs 2,000 fine for not filing an affidavit. Since the criminal case had abated on petitioner2's death, the Court awarded Rs 1,00,000 compensation to his widow (petitioner1) payable by the State within 8 weeks, recoverable from the officers responsible including Jadhav. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We express that the case of arrest of the Petitioner2, in above circumstanced is a classic example of the abuse and misuse of the powers by the police officials and for their act, the petitioners had to suffer and we have noted that despite our direction, no action contemplated through disciplinary proceedings is initiated against the respondent no.1.

**Sources (2):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/ordjud-1668567.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/ratna-chandrakant-vannam-v-tukaram-k-jadhav-2024bhc-as44106-db-1-lakh-compensation-unlawful-arrest-police-1558518)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Mrs. Ratna Mumbai Man and Another vs \[name withheld\], API, Wadala TT Police Station and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-10-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2024:BHC-AS:44106-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/ordjud-1668567.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/ratna-chandrakant-vannam-v-tukaram-k-jadhav-2024bhc-as44106-db-1-lakh-compensation-unlawful-arrest-police-1558518', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Unlawful arrest held abuse of power; Rs 1L to widow, recoverable from erring officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0043](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0043)

## Satara Man vs The State of Maharashtra and Others (CW-2024-0044)

**Record:** CW-2024-0044 (compiler id CWC-0777); case MAHARA-018
**Title:** Satara Man vs The State of Maharashtra and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: A.S. Chandurkar; Rajesh S. Patil
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1762 of 2013 / 2024:BHC-AS:44797-DB
**Judgment:** 2024-11-25 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-03-13 (2013)
**Place:** Satara, Maharashtra; city town: Satara; police station or unit: Satara police (Crime 19/2009 further investigation); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 45(2); CrPC 50; CrPC 56
**Officers (gated display forms):** Additional Superintendent of Police, Satara police; IO in further investigation of Crime 19/2009; Superintendent of Police, Satara (2 in record)
**Victims:** Satara man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court (A.S. Chandurkar, J.; Rajesh S. Patil, J. concurring) held that Police Inspector (ex-SHO, President's Police Medal 2004) was arrested illegally on 13 March 2013 at 17:15 by Addl. SP Amol Tambe over alleged faulty investigation in Crime 19/2009 and kept about 20 hours till bail on 14 March 2013. No State consent under Section 45(2) CrPC was obtained though he was a police officer acting in official duty, arrest memo/grounds were not recorded, the station diary entry was made 6+ hours late, and arrest was for bailable offences (ss. 201/218/221 IPC) without recording reasons. Finding gross Article 21 violation, the Court awarded Rs. 2,00,000 compensation from the State within eight weeks (6% p.a. interest on default), with recovery from guilty officers permitted after due process. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We find that the petitioner was arrested in an illegal manner and thereafter detained which was not in accordance with the provisions of Sections 45(2), 50 and 56 of the Code as well as the law laid down by Supreme Court of India.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196529654/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Satara Man vs The State of Maharashtra and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-11-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2024:BHC-AS:44797-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196529654/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: PI's arrest illegal (ss.45(2)/50/56 CrPC breached); Rs 2 lakh compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0044](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0044)

## Thane Man vs The State Of Maharashtra (CW-2025-0065)

**Record:** CW-2025-0065 (compiler id CWC-1348); case cop-mh-hc-5
**Title:** Thane Man vs The State Of Maharashtra
**Court:** High Court of Judicature at Bombay; judges: Revati Mohite Dere; Neela Gokhale
**Case number / citation:** CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4107 OF 2024
**Judgment:** 2025-04-07 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra; police station or unit: Badlapur (East) Police Station; Crime Branch, Thane; Mumbra Police; State CID; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police, State CID; Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime, Mumbai; Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane Crime Branch (3 in record)
**Victims:** Thane man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court examined the police-van shooting death of an undertrial being escorted by a Thane Crime Branch team. The High Court held that the starting point of investigation, registration of an FIR, was itself not complied with. The High Court held that the PUCL guidelines on encounter investigations were cited only to be ignored by the State. The High Court held that refusal to investigate undermines the rule of law and ordered a fresh SIT probe.

> The starting point of any investigation i.e, registration of an FIR itself is not complied with.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/147614739/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 19
**display title redacted:** Thane Man vs The State Of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-04-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Bombay', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4107 OF 2024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/147614739/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2025-0065](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0065)

## Parbhani Man vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others (CW-2025-0064)

**Record:** CW-2025-0064 (compiler id CWC-1347); case cop-mh-hc-4
**Title:** Parbhani Man vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others
**Court:** High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad; judges: Vibha Kankanwadi; Sanjay A. Deshmukh
**Case number / citation:** CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.457 OF 2025
**Judgment:** 2025-07-04 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-12-15 (2024)
**Place:** Parbhani, Maharashtra; police station or unit: Mondha Police Station, District Parbhani; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Mondha Police Station, Parbhani; Superintendent of Police, Parbhani; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Parbhani (3 in record)
**Victims:** Parbhani man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court examined the death of a detainee after the December 2024 Parbhani combing action and custody at Mondha Police Station. The High Court held that there was a gross violation of human rights and that the deceased died due to the police authorities. The High Court held that a cognizable offence was made out but the petitioner's FIR was not recorded. The High Court directed registration of an FIR on the complaint dated 18.12.2024 and a Deputy Superintendent-level probe.

> When the petitioner went to police station and tried to lodge the FIR, her FIR was not recorded.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153713541/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 12
**display title redacted:** Parbhani Man vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-07-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.457 OF 2025', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153713541/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2025-0064](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0064)

## Mumbai Man And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors (CW-2025-0063)

**Record:** CW-2025-0063 (compiler id CWC-1346); case cop-mh-hc-3
**Title:** Mumbai Man And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
**Court:** High Court of Judicature at Bombay; judges: Ravindra V. Ghuge; Gautam A. Ankhad
**Case number / citation:** CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 49 OF 2020
**Judgment:** 2025-09-11 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-10-28 (2019)
**Place:** Mumbai, Maharashtra; police station or unit: Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Inspector, Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station; Senior Police Inspector (SHO), Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station; Constable, Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station; Police Naik, Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court examined the death of a 22-year-old within hours of being taken to Wadala Truck Terminal Police Station. The High Court held that many loose strings emerged from the record and that the case deserved transfer to the CBI. The High Court held that the record falsified the police version that CCTVs were uninstalled due to renovation work. The High Court transferred further investigation to the CBI and kept compensation claims pending.

> This, therefore, falsifies the version of the Police authorities that the CCTVs were uninstalled due to renovation work.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163239742/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 31
**display title redacted:** Mumbai Man And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-09-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Bombay', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 49 OF 2020', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163239742/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2025-0063](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0063)

## Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra (CW-2025-0022)

**Record:** CW-2025-0022 (compiler id CWC-0636); case SWILLEGA-060
**Title:** Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Revati Mohite Dere; Sandesh D. Patil
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 23953/2024 / 2025:BHC-AS:41975-DB
**Judgment:** 2025-09-29 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-10-23 (2024)
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra; city town: Mumbai; police station or unit: Bandra Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 406; IPC 409; IPC 420; IPC 465; IPC 477A; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Bandra Police Station, Mumbai; Police Sub-Inspector, Bandra Police Station, Mumbai (2 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man, age 54 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

…the court found respondents 3-4 invoked s.409 'unilaterally without seeking permission of the superiors, as required' to avoid s.41A notice, calling it 'gross abuse of law' (para 17); 'high-handedness' was the petitioner's submission, not the court's word — drop or re-attribute…. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the above, we hold and delcare \[sic\] that the arrest of the Petitioner on 23.10.2024 by the respondents, was illegal and without lawful authority.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/vasantha-perampally-nayak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-624014.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/arrest-brings-humiliation-casts-scars-forever-bombay-high-court-orders-maharashtra-govt-to-pay-1-lakh-for-illegal-arrest-305814)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Mumbai Man vs State of Maharashtra
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-09-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2025:BHC-AS:41975-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/vasantha-perampally-nayak-vs-state-of-maharashtra-624014.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/arrest-brings-humiliation-casts-scars-forever-bombay-high-court-orders-maharashtra-govt-to-pay-1-lakh-for-illegal-arrest-305814', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB judgment verified via LiveLaw report and PDF; s. 409 deliberately invoked to dodge s. 41A, 20-day custody held illegal, Rs 1 lakh + DE against two named officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0022)

## Nagpur Man vs State Of Mah, Thr Home Department (CW-2026-0072)

**Record:** CW-2026-0072 (compiler id CWC-1345); case cop-mh-hc-2
**Title:** Nagpur Man vs State Of Mah, Thr Home Department
**Court:** High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench; judges: Urmila Joshi-Phalke; Nandesh S. Deshpande
**Case number / citation:** CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.397 OF 2019 / 2026:BHC-NAG:684-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-01-16 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-02-25 (2019)
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra; police station or unit: Pachpaoli Police Station, Nagpur City; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Section 21(b) of NDPS Act; Section 29 of NDPS Act
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Pachpaoli Police Station, Nagpur; Police Sub-Inspector, Pachpaoli Police Station, Nagpur; Police Inspector (PSO), Pachpaoli Police Station, Nagpur (3 in record)
**Victims:** Nagpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court held that the petitioner was wrongfully arrested and no procedure prescribed by law was followed in Crime No.159/2019. The High Court held that the departmental inquiry report was an eyewash and that senior officers tried to shield the wrongful acts of the field staff. The High Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and Sessions Trial (NDPS) No.27/2019. The High Court left compensation to a separate remedy and expressed trust that the State would start service action.

> It is, thus, clear that the petitioner was wrongfully arrested and no procedure as prescribed under law was followed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184912996/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 18
**display title redacted:** Nagpur Man vs State Of Mah, Thr Home Department
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-01-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2026:BHC-NAG:684-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184912996/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0072](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0072)

## Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid v. Union of India & Ors. (CW-2026-0001)

**Record:** CW-2026-0001 (compiler id CWC-0483); case GAP2-12-002; aliases: CWC-1429
**Title:** Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid v. Union of India & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Bharati Dangre; Manjusha Deshpande
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 7616 of 2021 / 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 357
**Judgment:** 2026-03-26 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2018-06-18 (2018)
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra; city town: Kalyan; police station or unit: RPF Post, Kalyan Railway Station; force: railway
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** RPF Rules 1987 r.146; RPF Rules 1987 r.147; RPF Rules 1987 r.153; RPF Rules 1987 r.156
**Officers (gated display forms):** Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid (Constable (Commando)) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kalyan woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. In June 2018 a video went viral showing RPF constable Rajesh Jangid, posted as Commando and in uniform at Kalyan railway station, sitting beside a woman passenger on a platform bench and touching her inappropriately until co-passengers intervened. The railway authorities chargesheeted him suo motu, held a disciplinary enquiry under the RPF Rules 1987, and removed him from service in August 2018, a penalty affirmed in revision and on representation. The court viewed the video clip itself and held it clearly established his intention to outrage the woman's modesty. The court found the misconduct proved, held removal (a lesser penalty than dismissal) fully justified for a member of a disciplined force, dismissed the writ petition and discharged the Rule. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the wake of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements and applying our mind to the facts before us and specifically by viewing the video clip which has clearly lead us to believe that the conduct of the Petitioner was truly deplorable and despite being in uniform and on the property of the Railway, he had dared to indulge into such an act and therefore we find complete justification in the Railway, in initiating an inquiry against him, finding him guilty and imposing a punishment of removal from service, which is lesser penalty than dismissal from service.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/31/rajesh-sahadeo-jangid-vs-union-of-india-690839.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-upholds-rpf-constable-removal-molestation-viral-video-543845); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/bombay-high-court/rajesh-sahadeo-jangid-v-union-of-india-2026bhc-as16291-db-rpf-constables-removal-for-outraging-modesty-1611854); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/11/ordjud-12watermark-1775686.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid v. Union of India & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-03-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 357', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/31/rajesh-sahadeo-jangid-vs-union-of-india-690839.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-upholds-rpf-constable-removal-molestation-viral-video-543845', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/bombay-high-court/rajesh-sahadeo-jangid-v-union-of-india-2026bhc-as16291-db-rpf-constables-removal-for-outraging-modesty-1611854', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/11/ordjud-12watermark-1775686.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** RPF constable's removal for on-duty molestation upheld after court viewed video; writ dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0001)

## Mumbai Man And Ors vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And Ors (CW-2026-0071)

**Record:** CW-2026-0071 (compiler id CWC-1344); case cop-mh-hc-1
**Title:** Mumbai Man And Ors vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And Ors
**Court:** High Court of Judicature at Bombay; judges: A. S. Gadkari; Shyam C. Chandak
**Case number / citation:** CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4451 OF 2022 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4104 OF 2022
**Judgment:** 2026-04-06 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-04-18 (2014)
**Place:** Mumbai, Maharashtra; police station or unit: Wadala Railway Police Station; Kurla Railway Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Sections 302 and 295-A of the IPC
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Police Inspector, Wadala Railway Police Station; Assistant Police Inspector, Wadala Railway Police Station; Police Sub-Inspector, Wadala Railway Police Station; Head Constable, Wadala Railway Police Station; Police Constable, Wadala Railway Police Station (5 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court upheld the trial court's order directing framing of additional charges under Sections 302 and 295-A of the IPC against railway police personnel for the custodial death of a detainee picked up for a robbery inquiry. The High Court held that there was sufficient material against the accused police personnel. The High Court held that adverse inference was permissible against the police. The High Court sent the matter back for framing of charges and trial.

> Therefore, adverse inference is permissible against the police whomsoever he/she may be.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44261376/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 13
**display title redacted:** Mumbai Man And Ors vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-04-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Bombay', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4451 OF 2022 with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4104 OF 2022', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44261376/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** case_title incorrectly shows '\[name withheld\]' — actual title is '\[name withheld\] And Ors vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And Ors'
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0071](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0071)

## Talegaon Man & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CW-2026-0016)

**Record:** CW-2026-0016 (compiler id CWC-0516); case SWDISPRO-009
**Title:** Talegaon Man & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur; judges: Urmila Joshi-Phalke; Nivedita P. Mehta
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 4927 of 2010 / 2026:BHC-NAG:6156-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-04-21 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2010-08-26 (2010)
**Place:** Amravati, Maharashtra; city town: Talegaon; police station or unit: Talegaon Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Inspector, Talegaon Police Station, Amravati; Police Constable, Talegaon Police Station, Amravati; Police Constable, Talegaon Police Station, Amravati (3 in record)
**Victims:** Talegaon man; Talegaon man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench held that Talegaon police violated the fundamental rights of a lawyer and an ex-serviceman detained under preventive action after a midnight cross-complaint on 26 August 2010. The Court found they were stripped to undergarments, kept handcuffed in public view and transported by State Transport bus, rejecting the justification of a public gathering outside the station since neither petitioner was a habitual or hardened criminal. It awarded Rs 50,000 to each petitioner payable by the State. The prayer for fresh departmental action was rejected as the officers had already been punished departmentally. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus, the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 namely Shri \[name withheld\] Assistant Police Inspector, Police Constable \[name withheld\] and Police Constable \[name withheld\] has subjected the present Petitioners to an unwarranted humiliation and indignity which cannot be done to any citizen of India and accordingly they are entitled for the compensation.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/22/adv-yogeshwar-madhukarrao-kawade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-669352.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/handcuffing-without-justification-mumbai-police-50k-compensation-531404); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3884376-compensation-ordered-for-unlawful-handcuffing-maharashtra-police-held-accountable)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 32
**display title redacted:** Talegaon Man & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-04-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026:BHC-NAG:6156-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/22/adv-yogeshwar-madhukarrao-kawade-vs-state-of-maharashtra-669352.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/handcuffing-without-justification-mumbai-police-50k-compensation-531404', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3884376-compensation-ordered-for-unlawful-handcuffing-maharashtra-police-held-accountable', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Nagpur bench held stripping/handcuffing/bus-parade illegal; Rs 50k each; dept punishment already imposed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0016)

## Akola Man v. State of Maharashtra and Others (CW-2026-0038)

**Record:** CW-2026-0038 (compiler id CWC-0613); case SWILLEGA-034
**Title:** Akola Man v. State of Maharashtra and Others
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Nagpur; judges: Urmila Joshi-Phalke; Raj D. Wakode
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 389 of 2024 / 2026:BHC-NAG:11441-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-08-31 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-03-04 (2024)
**Place:** Akola, Maharashtra; city town: Akola; police station or unit: Police Station Khadan; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Essential Commodities Act 1955 s.3; Essential Commodities Act 1955 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Inspector, Police Station Khadan, Akola; Police Inspector, Police Station Khadan, Akola (2 in record)
**Victims:** Akola man, age 26 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Student was picked up from his family hotel on 04-03-2024 by PI \[name withheld\] and API \[name withheld\], detained overnight without any Section 41/41-A notice or recorded grounds after an alleged Rs. 50,000 extortion demand, and released next morning. A departmental enquiry had already held both officers guilty of misconduct and punished them. The Division Bench held they exceeded their limits in arresting the petitioner without following due process, violating his Article 21 rights. It directed the State to pay Rs. 2 lakh compensation within eight weeks, deposited in court, rejecting the further-enquiry prayer as already satisfied. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the light of the above observations, in the present case also, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have acted as police officers and exceeded their limits and thus committed an error in arresting the petitioner without following due provisions of law.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/05/detention-698328.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-orders-compensation-illegal-detention-548884)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 47
**display title redacted:** Akola Man v. State of Maharashtra and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026:BHC-NAG:11441-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/05/detention-698328.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-orders-compensation-illegal-detention-548884', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: overnight detention without grounds illegal; Rs.2 lakh; DE punishment already imposed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0038)

## Mumbai Woman vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors (CW-2026-0070)

**Record:** CW-2026-0070 (compiler id CWC-1343); case cop-mh-hc-0
**Title:** Mumbai Woman vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
**Court:** High Court of Judicature at Bombay; judges: Sarang V. Kotwal; Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
**Case number / citation:** WRIT PETITION NO. 4381 OF 2026
**Judgment:** 2026-09-02 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-08-14 (2026)
**Place:** Mumbai, Maharashtra; police station or unit: Juhu Police Station; Anti-Extortion Cell, D.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Section 43(5) of BNSS
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Inspector of Police, Anti-Extortion Cell, D.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai; Police Sub-Inspector, Anti-Extortion Cell, D.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai (2 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court held that the petitioner's custody in C.R. No. 1285 of 2026 of Juhu Police Station violated Section 43(5) of the BNSS. The High Court held that the arrest documents did not show the signature of any woman police officer. The High Court ordered that the petitioner be released forthwith in connection with the said case. The High Court declined to grant compensation or damages.

> Thus, from the record we find that, there is a violation of Section 43(5) of BNSS.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34670708/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 10
**display title redacted:** Mumbai Woman vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Bombay', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'WRIT PETITION NO. 4381 OF 2026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34670708/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0070](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0070)

## Mumbai Suburban Man vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr (CW-2026-0098)

**Record:** CW-2026-0098 (compiler id CWC-1388)
**Title:** Mumbai Suburban Man vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
**Court:** High Court of Judicature at Bombay; judges: Milind N. Jadhav
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Application No. 612 of 2018
**Judgment:** 2026-09-10 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2018-02-04 (2018)
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra; police station or unit: Kasturba Marg Police Station, Borivali East; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (charges quashed)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (complainant), Kasturba Marg Police Station, Mumbai Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mumbai Suburban man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court recorded that a constable stopped a Mumbai jeweller on his motorcycle in Borivali East on 04.02.2018, kept his licence, and, by the man's account, demanded Rs. 500 as a penalty or Rs. 300 as a bribe; the man was then detained at Kasturba Marg Police Station until an FIR for assault and intimidation was registered around 2:00 am. The High Court held that the man's mobile-phone video and the constable's WhatsApp messages with senior officers prima facie showed the constable and his colleagues were instrumental in foisting a false case. It noted that police-station CCTV footage that should have been preserved was not available. The High Court quashed the chargesheet before the Borivali Metropolitan Magistrate and ordered any confiscated licence returned.

> the prosecution story is not only unbelievable but in my opinion it is a false and concocted story and case foisted on the Applicant.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56743685/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/bombay-high-court/cop-demanded-rs-300-bribe-foisted-false-case-551096)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Court finding (prima facie)', 'position_explainer': 'The court made a prima facie finding while quashing the case against the man.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Mumbai Suburban Man vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Past-week sweep: record written from the order text; quote checked verbatim against the order.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Bombay', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court quashed the chargesheet, finding prima facie that the complainant constable and colleagues foisted a false case.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding', 'source': 'Criminal Application No. 612 of 2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-25
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56743685/', 'link_checked': '2026-09-25'}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Checked against the order dated 10.09.2026 (reported 21.09.2026). The High Court made a prima facie finding while quashing; no compensation or action against the constable was ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0098](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0098)

## Lunthilian/Nungthulien Village Man vs Union of India and Anr. (CW-1997-0002)

**Record:** CW-1997-0002 (compiler id CWC-0273); case SWFAKEEN-027
**Title:** Lunthilian/Nungthulien Village Man vs Union of India and Anr.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: B.P. Jeevan Reddy; S.C. Sen
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 612 of 1992 / (1997) 3 SCC 433; AIR 1997 SC 1203
**Judgment:** 1997-02-05 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-04-03 (1991)
**Place:** Churachandpur, Manipur; city town: Lunthilian/Nungthulien village; police station or unit: Imphal Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Lunthilian/Nungthulien village man; Lunthilian/Nungthulien village man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

On PUCL's Article 32 petition, the Supreme Court accepted a District Judge inquiry finding that Imphal police caught villagers of Lunthilian on the night of 3 April 1991, trucked them away and shot dead a Lunthilian/Nungthulien village man and a Lunthilian/Nungthulien village man in custody on 4 April 1991, holding there was no encounter. The Court noted three other villagers were kept in custody for months until 22 July 1991. It awarded Rs 1,00,000 to each bereaved family payable by the Manipur government through the District Magistrate within two months, plus Rs 10,000 costs to PUCL. The Court left punishment of the offenders to the criminal courts while granting public-law compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> there was no encounter in the night between 3-4-1991 and 4-4-1991 at Nungthulien Village. The two deceased, namely, a Lunthilian/Nungthulien village man and a Lunthilian/Nungthulien village man were shot dead by the police while in custody on 4-4-1991.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/544871/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Lunthilian/Nungthulien Village Man vs Union of India and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-02-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1997) 3 SCC 433; AIR 1997 SC 1203', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/544871/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court held the 1991 killings were custodial murders, not an encounter, and awarded Rs 1 lakh per family; matches adverse_finding_compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0002)

## Chandel Man vs State of Manipur and Ors. (CW-1997-0007)

**Record:** CW-1997-0007 (compiler id CWC-0270); case NORTHE-011
**Title:** Chandel Man vs State of Manipur and Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: W.A. Shishak; P.K. Ghosh
**Case number / citation:** 1998 ACJ 1298
**Judgment:** 1997-08-01 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-01-28 (1989)
**Place:** Chandel, Manipur; city town: Chandel; police station or unit: Chandel Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 202; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Chandel Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Chandel man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court held that Ningthoujam Angou Singh, a PHED pump operator, died in the custody of Chandel police on 28 January 1989, hours after a six-man armed party led by ASI took him from his home without disclosing any case. The Court found he was brought to Chandel hospital in a dying condition with severe injuries and that police fabricated an arrest in FIR 5(1)89 under Section 302 IPC. It allowed the CLAHRO petition and directed the State to pay Rs 2,00,000 to the widow and minor children within three months. The Court left it open to the State to recover the amount from the persons found responsible for the custodial death. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On careful perusal of the documents placed before us and after hearing counsel of both sides and in the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the view that death of N. Angou Singh in police custody has been established. In such a situation, the only remedy we can think of is to award compensation so that the members of the family of the deceased may not be driven to destitution.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/274318/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Chandel Man vs State of Manipur and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-08-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1998 ACJ 1298', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/274318/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC DB held custodial death established and awarded Rs 2 lakh; matches adverse_finding_compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0007)

## Iroishemba Woman vs State of Manipur and Others (CW-1998-0009)

**Record:** CW-1998-0009 (compiler id CWC-0860); case GAP2-41-004
**Title:** Iroishemba Woman vs State of Manipur and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; bench: Imphal; judges: H.K. Sema
**Case number / citation:** Civil Rule No. 315 of 1996 / AIR 1999 Gauhati 9; (1998) 3 Gau LR 123
**Judgment:** 1998-03-31 (1998, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-08-14 (1995)
**Place:** Imphal West, Manipur; city town: Iroishemba; police station or unit: 5th Battalion, Manipur Rifles (Iroishemba post); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, 5th Battalion, Manipur Rifles, Iroishemba
**Victims:** Iroishemba man, age 43 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench) allowed the writ petition of the widow of taxi driver \[name withheld\], killed on 14.08.1995 near the 5th Bn Manipur Rifles post at Iroishemba. Relying on a court-ordered ADM enquiry, the court found he died of bullet injuries fired by the Rifles personnel, who had fired about 83 rounds of.303 ammunition at his lone jeep after he allegedly failed to halt. It termed the firing indiscriminate and trigger-happy, held the killing a breach of fundamental rights for which the State was vicariously liable, and directed Rs 1.5 lakh compensation within three months, adjusting the Rs 20,000 ex gratia already paid. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is shocking to notice that in order to stop a lone vehicle (Jeep) altogether about 83 rounds of .303 ammunition had been fired indiscriminately.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/672029/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/426619/smt-aheibam-ongbi-leihao-devi-appellant-hash-state-of-manipur-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** Iroishemba Woman vs State of Manipur and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1998-03-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 1999 Gauhati 9; (1998) 3 Gau LR 123', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/672029/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/426619/smt-aheibam-ongbi-leihao-devi-appellant-hash-state-of-manipur-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Mirror text verified: Rs 1.5L compensation for indiscriminate firing killing taxi driver.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1998-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1998-0009)

## Loitang Khunou Woman vs State of Manipur and Ors. (CW-2006-0001)

**Record:** CW-2006-0001 (compiler id CWC-0263); case SWFAKEEN-008
**Title:** Loitang Khunou Woman vs State of Manipur and Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: T. Nandakumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** 2006 Cri LJ 1895
**Judgment:** 2006-01-31 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-02-15 (1999)
**Place:** Imphal West, Manipur; city town: Loitang Khunou (Lamsang); police station or unit: Manipur Police Commando Unit; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Pebam John Singh (Sub-Inspector); Police personnel, Manipur Police Commando Unit; Inspector (OC), Manipur Police Commando Unit (5 in record)
**Victims:** Loitang Khunou man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court (single judge) held that a Loitang Khunou man @ a Loitang Khunou man was in the custody of five Manipur Police Commando personnel (respondents 6-10) led by SI Pebam John Singh when he was shot dead at Loitang Khunou on 15-02-1999 in a staged encounter, rejecting the police version. The court found the commandos took him to Loitang Khunou instead of the lock-up at their own risk and were liable for the loss of life in their protection and custody. Holding the State vicariously liable for the constitutional tort, it awarded Rs 3 lakh compensation payable within three months, the respondents jointly and severally liable. The staged FIR (Lamsang PS 7(2)/99 under Sections 121/121-A/307/302/34 IPC) did not save the encounter claim. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> From the view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that late a Loitang Khunou man Alias a Loitang Khunou man was in the custody of respondents 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 at the time of the incidence on 15-2-1999 and they (respondents 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) are liable for loss of the life of a Loitang Khunou man Alias a Loitang Khunou man who was very much in their protection and custody, and at their own risks they (respondents 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) had taken a Loitang Khunou man Alias a Loitang Khunou man to Loitang Khunou instead of keeping him in the police lock-up and thereby resulting to the loss of the life of a Loitang Khunou man Alias a Loitang Khunou man at Loitang Khunou on 15-2-1999.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117071/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Loitang Khunou Woman vs State of Manipur and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-01-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2006 Cri LJ 1895', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117071/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC held a Loitang Khunou man shot in custody in fake encounter; Rs 3L, respondents jointly/severally liable.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0001)

## \[name withheld\] & Anr. Lamlai Man Ongbi Gambhini Devi (CW-2006-0030)

**Record:** CW-2006-0030 (compiler id CWC-1309); case GAP3-93-002
**Title:** \[name withheld\] & Anr. Lamlai Man Ongbi Gambhini Devi
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; bench: Imphal; judges: B. D. Agarwal
**Case number / citation:** First Appeal against Money Suit No. 3 of 1985 (31 of 2002) / (2007) CriLJ 1491
**Judgment:** 2006-11-29 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-06-13 (1983)
**Place:** Imphal East, Manipur; city town: Lamlai; police station or unit: Lamlai Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 366; IPC 34; IPC 304-A; Arms Act s.25(1)(a); CrPC 46
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Officer-in-charge, Lamlai Police Station; Armed Police Constable, Lamlai Police Station; Naik, Lamlai Police Station; Police Constable, Lamlai Police Station; Police Constable, Lamlai Police Station (5 in record)
**Victims:** Lamlai man, age 25 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Gauhati High Court records the following account. On 13 June 1983 a Lamlai police party went to arrest a Lamlai man, 25, in a kidnapping case; when he fled, constables chased and fired, one bullet hit him and he died on the way to hospital. The criminal case under section 304-A IPC ended with the Officer-in-charge discharged and the constable acquitted, but the deceased's mother won a Rs.5 lakh money-suit decree against the five officers. On 29 November 2006 the High Court held that where a government servant causes death in violation of law while on duty, the State must compensate first and may recover from the erring servants. It maintained the Rs.5 lakh award (no interest) but modified the decree so the State of Manipur pays within three months, recoverable from the officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In other words, the amount of compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs is hereby maintained. However, it is made clear that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 shall not be entitled to any interest thereon till date. The State is directed to make the aforesaid payment within 3 (three) months from today.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1667853/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/430707/nangkhujam-mungsong-and-another-appellant-hash-smt-thokchom-ongbi-gambhini-devi-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] & Anr. Lamlai Man Ongbi Gambhini Devi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-11-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2007) CriLJ 1491', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1667853/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/430707/nangkhujam-mungsong-and-another-appellant-hash-smt-thokchom-ongbi-gambhini-devi-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs.5L award for death by police firing maintained; State ordered to pay within 3 months.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0030)

## Irong Thana Thongkhong Man v. State of Manipur and Others (CW-2006-0016)

**Record:** CW-2006-0016 (compiler id CWC-0654); case SWFAKEEN-038
**Title:** Irong Thana Thongkhong Man v. State of Manipur and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; bench: Imphal; judges: B.D. Agarwal
**Case number / citation:** (2007) 2 GLR 823
**Judgment:** 2006-12-20 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-02-03 (2000)
**Place:** Thoubal, Manipur; city town: Irong Thana Thongkhong; police station or unit: Manipur Police (armed escort of MLA); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307; IPC 326; IPC 114; IPC 34; Arms Act s.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Constable, Manipur Police (MLA escort party) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Irong Thana Thongkhong man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench, Justice B.D. Agarwal) awarded Rs 2.5 lakh to the father of an Irong Thana Thongkhong man, who was shot dead by armed police constables escorting a sitting MLA during the February 2000 Assembly election campaign at Irong Thana Thongkhong. The Court found the firing was resorted to on mere suspicion of an attack, with no actual attack or provocation from the deceased's side, a conclusion supported by the District Magistrate's executive inquiry. The State of Manipur was held liable for the constables' killing; Rs 50,000 already paid as interim relief was adjusted against the award, which also covered two others injured in the firing. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction that the writ petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs (Rs. Two lakhs fifty thousand only). Since the deceased was killed by police constable, the State of Manipur is liable to satisfy the award.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/374840/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/560910b3e4b01497111823e8); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/137479/hesamuddin-iboyaima-vs-state-manipur)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Irong Thana Thongkhong Man v. State of Manipur and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-12-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 250,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2007) 2 GLR 823', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/374840/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/560910b3e4b01497111823e8', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/137479/hesamuddin-iboyaima-vs-state-manipur', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC judgment corroborated on CaseMine/sooperkanoon/court records; Rs 2.5L award for unprovoked police firing matches.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0016)

## Kakching Man vs State of Manipur and Others (CW-2010-0009)

**Record:** CW-2010-0009 (compiler id CWC-0268); case NORTHE-009; aliases: CWC-0525
**Title:** Kakching Man vs State of Manipur and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; bench: Imphal; judges: Madan B. Lokur; Ashok Potsangbam
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 16 of 2006 / (2010) 6 GLR 609
**Judgment:** 2010-08-23 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-01-01 (2006)
**Place:** Kakching, Manipur (district at time: Thoubal); city town: Kakching; police station or unit: Kakching Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Kakching man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench) held that a Kakching man died as a result of torture by police personnel of Kakching Police Station after being arrested in connection with his wife's death. Accepting the inquiry report of the District Judge, Manipur West, the Division Bench rejected police denials and confirmed custodial violence. The court awarded Rs 5,00,000 as compensation to be held in fixed deposits for the victim's two minor children until they attain 21 years of age. Additionally, the High Court directed the Director General of Police to conduct an in-house enquiry personally or through an officer not below DIG rank to initiate departmental action against the responsible police personnel. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It cannot be seriously disputed that a Kakching man was tortured to death by the local police, although this is denied.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/415571/khsetrimayum-ghane-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-manipur-and-others-respondent/); [kanglaonline.in](https://kanglaonline.in/2010/08/hc-tells-govt-to-pay-rs-5-lakh-to-kin-of-custodial-death-victim/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/415571/pdf/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Kakching Man vs State of Manipur and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-08-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2010) 6 GLR 609', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/415571/khsetrimayum-ghane-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-manipur-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://kanglaonline.in/2010/08/hc-tells-govt-to-pay-rs-5-lakh-to-kin-of-custodial-death-victim/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/415571/pdf/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC (Imphal Bench) held Kakching police tortured a Kakching man to death, awarding Rs 5,00,000 compensation and ordering departmental inquiry.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0009)

## New Tairenpokpi Man v. State of Manipur & Ors. (CW-2011-0016)

**Record:** CW-2011-0016 (compiler id CWC-0560); case SWFAKEEN-023
**Title:** New Tairenpokpi Man v. State of Manipur & Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; bench: Imphal; judges: T. Nandakumar Singh; Mutum Binoykumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Cril.) No. 71 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2011-08-25 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-03-24 (2009)
**Place:** Imphal West, Manipur; city town: New Tairenpokpi; police station or unit: Imphal West Police Commando with 16 Assam Rifles (combined force; FIR No. 16(3)09, Lamshang PS); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** New Tairenpokpi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Gauhati High Court records the following account. On 24 March 2009, civilian construction labourer and tutor a New Tairenpokpi man was picked up by plainclothes personnel of the combined Imphal West Police Commando and 16 Assam Rifles force while on his way to a Youth, and was shot dead the same evening at New Tairenpokpi; a false KYKL-encounter case was registered at Lamshang PS. The Addl. District Judge inquiry found no evidence he was a KYKL member and rejected the encounter version. The Court held the petitioner's case more trustworthy, found an established Article 21 violation, and awarded Rs 5,00,000 exemplary damages shared equally by the State and the Union/AR plus Rs 6,000 costs, preserving criminal remedies. Decided by the Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case, on careful perusal of the statements of PWs before the learned Addl District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court, Imphal East) and also the annexures in the present writ petition, it appears that the case of the petitioner is convincing and more trustworthy than that of the respondents.

**Sources (1):** [hcmimphal.nic.in](https://hcmimphal.nic.in/hcmjudgement/Judgement/uploads/j92-2009-71.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** New Tairenpokpi Man v. State of Manipur & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-08-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(Cril.) No. 71 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://hcmimphal.nic.in/hcmjudgement/Judgement/uploads/j92-2009-71.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Civilian tutor picked up and killed by combined force; false KYKL case, Rs 5L.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0016)

## The Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur and Others vs Smt. Naorem Ongbi Rashmani Devi and Others (CW-2012-0009)

**Record:** CW-2012-0009 (compiler id CWC-0269); case NORTHE-010
**Title:** The Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur and Others vs Smt. Naorem Ongbi Rashmani Devi and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; bench: Imphal; judges: T. Nandakumar Singh; N. Kotiswar Singh
**Case number / citation:** Regular First Appeal No. 3 of 2009 / AIR 2012 Guw 113
**Judgment:** 2012-06-05 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-07-29 (1991)
**Place:** Kakching, Manipur (district at time: Thoubal); city town: Kakching; police station or unit: Kakching Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 224; IPC 330; IPC 331
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Kakching Police Station; Inspector, Kakching Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Kakching man, age 35 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 7.2 lakh (Rs 7,20,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench) dismissed the State of Manipur's regular first appeal, affirming a civil court decree awarding Rs 7,20,000 with 6% annual interest for the custodial death of a Kakching man Singh was arrested from his home on 29 July 1991 by an ASI-led police party and taken to Kakching Police Station, where he was tortured in the lockup, and his dead body was subsequently found floating in Kharungpat lake on 2 August 1991. The High Court rejected the police's fabricated claim that Singh had escaped from custody, holding that the State was vicariously liable for the wrongful and tortious acts of its police officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The learned Trial Court after appreciation of the statements of D.Ws. held that the defendants had utterly failed to prove that (late) a Kakching man, escaped from police custody and further held that (late) a Kakching man died in the police custody.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/431290/the-chief-secretary-government-of-manipur-and-others-appellant-hash-smt-naorem-ongbi-rashmani-de/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** The Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur and Others vs Smt. Naorem Ongbi Rashmani Devi and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-06-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 720,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 2012 Guw 113', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/431290/the-chief-secretary-government-of-manipur-and-others-appellant-hash-smt-naorem-ongbi-rashmani-de/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC (Imphal Bench) dismissed State appeal, affirming Rs 7,20,000 tort damages plus 6% interest for custodial death of a Kakching man
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0009)

## Khurai Chairenthong Man v. State of Manipur & Ors. (CW-2013-0002)

**Record:** CW-2013-0002 (compiler id CWC-0558); case SWFAKEEN-021
**Title:** Khurai Chairenthong Man v. State of Manipur & Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; bench: Imphal; judges: T. Nandakumar Singh; N. Kotiswar Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Cril.) No. 25 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2013-02-07 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-11-13 (2006)
**Place:** Imphal East, Manipur; city town: Khurai Chairenthong; police station or unit: Manipur Police Commando, Imphal West; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Havildar, Manipur Police Commando, Imphal West; Constable, Manipur Police Commando, Imphal West (2 in record)
**Victims:** Khurai Chairenthong man, age 26 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Gauhati High Court records the following account. On 13 November 2006, hours after his release from Central Jail Sajiwa, 26-year-old a Khurai Chairenthong man @ a Khurai Chairenthong man was dragged from a Maruti van near N.G. Mani College while returning home with friends, and shot dead by Manipur Police Commandos at Khurai Chairenthong. Havildar then lodged a false report claiming the youth attacked police during frisking. Accepting the District Judge (Manipur East) inquiry, the Court found a Khurai Chairenthong man was shot down by Manipur Police personnel and awarded Rs 5,00,000 public-law compensation plus Rs 5,000 costs, preserving civil and criminal remedies. Decided by the Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench), before the Manipur High Court was established in March 2013. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, we have come to the finding that a Khurai Chairenthong man @ a Khurai Chairenthong man was shot down by the Manipur Police personnel in the incident on 13.11.2006.

**Sources (1):** [hcmimphal.nic.in](https://hcmimphal.nic.in/hcmjudgement/Judgement/uploads/j92-2009-25.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Khurai Chairenthong Man v. State of Manipur & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-02-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(Cril.) No. 25 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://hcmimphal.nic.in/hcmjudgement/Judgement/uploads/j92-2009-25.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Youth dragged from van and shot after jail release; false case exposed, Rs 5L.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0002)

## Heirangoithong Man & Anr. v. State of Manipur & Ors. (CW-2014-0005)

**Record:** CW-2014-0005 (compiler id CWC-0266); case NORTHE-007; aliases: CWC-0639
**Title:** Heirangoithong Man & Anr. v. State of Manipur & Ors.
**Court:** Manipur High Court; judges: L.K. Mohapatra; N. Kotiswar Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Cril.) No. 18 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2014-09-05 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-12-23 (2008)
**Place:** Imphal West, Manipur; city town: Heirangoithong (killing at Heinoupok-Sadokpam road); police station or unit: Imphal West Commando, Manipur Police, with 32 Assam Rifles (joint operation); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Manipur Police Commando (joint operation with 32 Assam Rifles); Subedar, Manipur Police Commando (0 in record)
**Victims:** Heirangoithong man, age 38 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

On 23 December 2008, a Heirangoithong man, a 38-year-old unmarried Grade-IV High Court employee, was dragged from a tea shop at Heirangoithong and shot dead on the Heinoupok-Sadokpam road by a joint team of Manipur Police Commandos and 32 Assam Rifles, who branded him a PREPAK cadre with a planted pistol and grenade lever. The High Court accepted the District & Sessions Judge (Manipur East) inquiry finding, based on eyewitness evidence, that the official encounter version was false. It allowed the brothers' writ petition and awarded Rs 5,00,000 compensation, shared equally by the State and 32 Assam Rifles. Note: the court-site PDF link was unreachable at verification; the text was verified on the mirror. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Relying on the above evidence of the witness corroborated by the affidavit of PW No. 4, learned District & Sessions Judge has rendered the above finding. We, therefore, find no justification to differ with the finding arrived at by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Manipur.

**Sources (4):** [hcmimphal.nic.in](https://hcmimphal.nic.in/hcmjudgement/Judgement/uploads/j92-2009-18.pdf); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86008/ningombam-brojen-singh-vs-state-of-manipur/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86008/ningombam-brojen-singh-vs-the-state-of-manipur/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47609784/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Heirangoithong Man & Anr. v. State of Manipur & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-09-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Manipur High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Manipur High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(Cril.) No. 18 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://hcmimphal.nic.in/hcmjudgement/Judgement/uploads/j92-2009-18.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86008/ningombam-brojen-singh-vs-state-of-manipur/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86008/ningombam-brojen-singh-vs-the-state-of-manipur/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47609784/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Joint commando-AR team held to have killed civilian in fake encounter; Rs 5L shared.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0005)

## Lambui Lambi Man & Anr. v. State of Manipur & Ors. (CW-2014-0006)

**Record:** CW-2014-0006 (compiler id CWC-0559); case SWFAKEEN-022
**Title:** Lambui Lambi Man & Anr. v. State of Manipur & Ors.
**Court:** Manipur High Court; judges: L.K. Mohapatra; N. Kotiswar Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Cril.) Nos. 26 and 27 of 2009 (common judgment)
**Judgment:** 2014-09-09 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-10-14 (2008)
**Place:** Imphal East, Manipur; city town: Lambui Lambi; police station or unit: Manipur Police Commando (FIR at Porompat PS); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Lambui Lambi man; Lambui Lambi man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Manipur High Court records the following account. On the evening of 14 October 2008, cousins a Lambui Lambi man and a Lambui Lambi man went out on a Kinetic Honda and were picked up near LMS Law College; that night TV news showed both killed in an encounter at Lambui Lambi with a planted pistol and revolver. The High Court accepted the District Judge (Manipur East) inquiry finding that both men were killed by Manipur Police Commandos in a fake encounter with no exchange of fire, disbelieving the firing-while-riding story on ballistic and post-mortem evidence. It allowed both widows' petitions and awarded Rs 5,00,000 to each (Rs 10,00,000 total) within four months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On consideration of the evidence placed in course of the enquiry the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that both the deceased persons were killed by the Manipur Police Commandoes in fake encounter at Lambui Lambi and there was no exchange of fire or encounter in between the two deceased persons and the police commandoes.

**Sources (1):** [hcmimphal.nic.in](https://hcmimphal.nic.in/hcmjudgement/Judgement/uploads/j92-2009-26.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Lambui Lambi Man & Anr. v. State of Manipur & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-09-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Manipur High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Manipur High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(Cril.) Nos. 26 and 27 of 2009 (common judgment)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://hcmimphal.nic.in/hcmjudgement/Judgement/uploads/j92-2009-26.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Two cousins killed in fake encounter at Lambui Lambi; Rs 5L to each widow.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0006)

## Leimakhong Mapal Man vs The State of Manipur and Others (CW-2014-0007)

**Record:** CW-2014-0007 (compiler id CWC-0548); case SWFAKEEN-007
**Title:** Leimakhong Mapal Man vs The State of Manipur and Others
**Court:** Manipur High Court; judges: N. Kotiswar Singh; Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra
**Case number / citation:** W.P. (Crl.) No. 73 of 2009 / (2014) 09 MAN CK 0016
**Judgment:** 2014-09-11 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-12-28 (2008)
**Place:** Imphal East, Manipur; city town: Leimakhong Mapal; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Manipur Police Commandos with 23 Assam Rifles (1 in record)
**Victims:** Leimakhong Mapal man, age 23 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Manipur High Court Division Bench (Justices N. Kotiswar Singh and Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra) held Manipur Police Commandos and 23 Assam Rifles personnel responsible for the 28 December 2008 killing of 23-year-old a Leimakhong Mapal man at Huimei Ching foothill, Imphal East. The youth, abducted with a friend and later found bullet-riddled in the RIMS mortuary, was inferred to have been apprehended by the forces since the alleged encounter was not proved and no unlawful-organisation link was shown. The Court held his Article 21 right violated and awarded Rs 5 lakh constitutional-law compensation shared equally by the State and the Assam Rifles within four months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Accordingly, we do not have any hesitation to hold on the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report that there was no encounter as alleged by the respondents and the petitioner's son and his friend had died an unnatural violent death at the hands of the police and Assam Rifles personnel.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86124/soubam-radhe-vs-the-state-of-manipur/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Leimakhong Mapal Man vs The State of Manipur and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-09-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Manipur High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Manipur High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2014) 09 MAN CK 0016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86124/soubam-radhe-vs-the-state-of-manipur/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held police commandos+AR responsible for youth's killing; Rs 5L shared compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0007)

## Imphal Man v. State of Manipur (CW-2014-0008)

**Record:** CW-2014-0008 (compiler id CWC-0265); case NORTHE-006; aliases: CWC-1438
**Title:** Imphal Man v. State of Manipur
**Court:** Manipur High Court; judges: Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra; N. Kotiswar Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 446 of 2008 / (2014) 09 MAN CK 0020
**Judgment:** 2014-09-15 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-03-29 (2008)
**Place:** Imphal West, Manipur; city town: Imphal; police station or unit: Manipur Police Commando, Imphal West (OC Imphal Police Station present); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Manipur Police Commando, Imphal West (1 in record)
**Victims:** Imphal man, age 34 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench of the Manipur High Court held that an Imphal man, a 34-year-old sales executive, was killed in cold blood by Manipur Police Commando personnel at his residence at Keishamthong on 29 March 2008 and not in an encounter, accepting the District Judge's enquiry report. The police version of an exchange of fire was inconsistent with the evidence, which showed he was shot after falling and a pistol planted beside his hand while another commando fired in the air to scare the family. Finding a fake encounter by State police with no encounter between the deceased and the commandos, the court awarded Rs 5,00,000 compensation payable within four months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This evidence clearly shows that there was no encounter between the deceased and the commandos.

**Sources (4):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86128/longjam-shanti-singh-vs-the-statement-of-manipur/); [humanrights.asia](http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/AHRC-UAC-073-2008/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86128/longjam-shanti-singh-appellant-hash-the-statement-of-manipur-respondent/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea8c9c607dba38d0b072e2)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Imphal Man v. State of Manipur
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-09-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Manipur High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Manipur High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2014) 09 MAN CK 0020', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86128/longjam-shanti-singh-vs-the-statement-of-manipur/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/AHRC-UAC-073-2008/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86128/longjam-shanti-singh-appellant-hash-the-statement-of-manipur-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea8c9c607dba38d0b072e2', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Planted-pistol fake encounter at home; Rs 5 lakh DB award verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0008)

## Phoubakchao Boy vs The State of Manipur and Others (CW-2014-0009)

**Record:** CW-2014-0009 (compiler id CWC-0547); case SWFAKEEN-006
**Title:** Phoubakchao Boy vs The State of Manipur and Others
**Court:** Manipur High Court; judges: Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra; N. Kotiswar Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P. (Crl.) No. 49 of 2009 / (2014) 09 MAN CK 0015
**Judgment:** 2014-09-15 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-03-04 (2009)
**Place:** Imphal West, Manipur; city town: Phoubakchao; police station or unit: Mayang Imphal Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Manipur Police Commandos with 21 Assam Rifles (1 in record)
**Victims:** Phoubakchao boy, age 12 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Manipur High Court Division Bench (Chief Justice Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh) held Manipur Police Commandos and 21 Assam Rifles personnel responsible for the 4 March 2009 killing of 12-year-old student a 12-year-old boy, dragged from his Phoubakchao home and shot dead in a paddy field with a planted pistol. Disbelieving the retaliatory-killing-of-a-PULF-cadre version in light of the District Judge's inquiry and eyewitnesses, the Court held the death was caused without procedure established by law. It awarded Rs 5 lakh public-law compensation shared equally by the State and the Assam Rifles within four months, with liberty to seek more civilly. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Having held that the Manipur Police Commandos and the Assam Rifle personnel were responsible for the death of the petitioner's son, they would be liable for payment of compensation under the public law remedy as the death was caused without following the process established by law.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86123/garamjan-bibi-vs-the-state-of-manipur/); [kanglaonline.in](https://kanglaonline.in/2014/09/hc-orders-compensation-in-12-year-old-killing-case/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Phoubakchao Boy vs The State of Manipur and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-09-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Manipur High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Manipur High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2014) 09 MAN CK 0015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86123/garamjan-bibi-vs-the-state-of-manipur/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://kanglaonline.in/2014/09/hc-orders-compensation-in-12-year-old-killing-case/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held police commandos+AR responsible for killing of minor; Rs 5L shared compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 12, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 12-year-old boy'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0009)

## Yen-Kao-Bung, Kameng Man v. State of Manipur & Ors. (CW-2014-0011)

**Record:** CW-2014-0011 (compiler id CWC-0557); case SWFAKEEN-020
**Title:** Yen-Kao-Bung, Kameng Man v. State of Manipur & Ors.
**Court:** Manipur High Court; judges: L.K. Mohapatra; N. Kotiswar Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Cril.) No. 24 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2014-11-13 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-11-04 (2008)
**Place:** Imphal West, Manipur; city town: Yen-kao-bung, Kameng; police station or unit: Manipur Police Commando, Imphal West (encounter report at Lamsang PS); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Yen-kao-bung, Kameng man, age 35 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Manipur High Court records the following account. On 4 November 2008, a Yen-kao-bung, Kameng man, 35, telephoned his wife that Manipur Police Commandos had apprehended him at Wahengbam Leikai; that evening TV news showed him killed in an encounter at Yen-kao-bung, Kameng, with a planted grenade, and branded a KCP(MC) militant. The High Court accepted the District Judge (Manipur East) inquiry finding that there was no encounter and held he was killed by the commandos while in their custody under cover of a staged encounter. It allowed the widow's petition and awarded Rs 5,00,000 compensation within three months. Note: the court-site PDF link was unreachable at verification; the text was verified on the mirror. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We, therefore, accept the report submitted by the learned District Judge and hold that the deceased husband of the petitioner was killed by the Manipur Police Commandos while he was in their custody and it was given a colour of encounter.

**Sources (2):** [hcmimphal.nic.in](https://hcmimphal.nic.in/hcmjudgement/Judgement/uploads/j92-2009-24.pdf); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86135/neena-devi-vs-state-of-manipur/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Yen-Kao-Bung, Kameng Man v. State of Manipur & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-11-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Manipur High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Manipur High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(Cril.) No. 24 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://hcmimphal.nic.in/hcmjudgement/Judgement/uploads/j92-2009-24.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86135/neena-devi-vs-state-of-manipur/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Custodial killing by commandos given colour of encounter; Rs 5L to widow.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0011)

## Imphal Man v. State of Manipur and Others (CW-2019-0001)

**Record:** CW-2019-0001 (compiler id CWC-0569); case SWFAKEEN-035
**Title:** Imphal Man v. State of Manipur and Others
**Court:** Manipur High Court; judges: Ramalingam Sudhakar; Kh. Nobin Singh
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Cril.) No. 2 of 2016 / (2019) 02 MAN CK 0007
**Judgment:** 2019-02-13 (2019, month precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-03-20 (2008)
**Place:** Imphal East, Manipur; city town: Imphal; police station or unit: Manipur Police Commando, Imphal East; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Commando personnel, Manipur Police Commando, Imphal East (1 in record)
**Victims:** Imphal man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Manipur High Court held that an Imphal man was picked up from his temporary residence at Nagamapal by Manipur Police Commandos on 20 March 2008 without arrest memo and killed in a fake encounter at Kangla Siphai the same day, and awarded his widow Rs 10 lakh compensation payable by the State within six months through the Court Registry. Police claimed a combined commando-39 Assam Rifles gunfight with KYKL letters recovered; the District Judge (Imphal East) inquiry found no Assam Rifles involvement, disbelieved the police witnesses and found no KYKL nexus, concluding a clear fake encounter. The Court accepted the report, held the deceased an ordinary person, and doubled the usual Rs 5 lakh given the decade-long hardship of the widowed mother of three. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court is of the view that a fake encounter took place on 20-03-2008 when the present petitioner's husband was killed by the Manipur Police Commandos.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1010451/thokchom-o-roshini-devi-appellant-hash-state-of-manipur-and-others-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=529102700000&title=thokchom-o-roshini-devi-vs-state-of-manipur)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Imphal Man v. State of Manipur and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['judgment_date', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-02-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Manipur High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Manipur High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2019) 02 MAN CK 0007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1010451/thokchom-o-roshini-devi-appellant-hash-state-of-manipur-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=529102700000&title=thokchom-o-roshini-devi-vs-state-of-manipur', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Manipur HC held an Imphal man killed in fake encounter by Police Commandos; Rs 10L compensation via Registry.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0001)

## The State of Manipur v. Manipur Police Rifleman (CW-2022-0002)

**Record:** CW-2022-0002 (compiler id CWC-0276); case NORTHE-017; aliases: CWC-1481
**Title:** The State of Manipur v. Manipur Police Rifleman
**Court:** Manipur High Court; judges: Sanjay Kumar; Lanusungkum Jamir
**Case number / citation:** WA Nos. 13 and 14 of 2021 / (2022) 03 MAN CK 0025
**Judgment:** 2022-03-11 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2015-05-19 (2015)
**Place:** Thoubal, Manipur; city town: Lilong; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 121; IPC 121A; UAPA s.16(1)(b); UAPA s.20; Arms Act s.25(1)(a); Arms Act s.25(1B); Explosive Substances Act 1908 s.4; Explosive Substances Act 1908 s.5
**Officers (gated display forms):** Rifleman, 4th India Reserve Battalion, Manipur Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Manipur High Court records the following account. Rifleman of the 4th India Reserve Battalion was arrested on 19 May 2015 after investigation showed he had become an active worker of CorCom, a conglomerate of valley-based militant outfits, throwing hand grenades in December 2014 and transporting arms while in uniform. He was dismissed on 25 March 2017 by the Governor under Article 311(2)(c) on a Committee of Advisors' recommendation. A Single Judge set aside the suspension and dismissal on 27 January 2020. The Division Bench allowed the State's writ appeals, holding the Committee's constitution and the Governor's satisfaction valid, and confirmed the dismissal order.

> On the above analysis, we find that the order of dismissal passed against \[name withheld\] did not merit interference and the learned Judge erred in setting it aside. We accordingly set aside the Judgment & Order dated 27.01.2020 in W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2017. As we have upheld the dismissal order dated 25.03.2017, the question of reinstating \[name withheld\] in service in terms of the said Judgment & Order no longer arises.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82157871/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1119854/pdf/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1119854/state-of-manipur-appellant-hash-yahiya-khan-ors-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** The State of Manipur v. Manipur Police Rifleman
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-03-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Manipur High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Manipur High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2022) 03 MAN CK 0025', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82157871/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1119854/pdf/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1119854/state-of-manipur-appellant-hash-yahiya-khan-ors-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Manipur HC allowed State appeals, set aside Single Judge orders and confirmed Rifleman's Article 311(2)(c) dismissal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0002)

## Shillong Man vs State of Meghalaya and Ors. (CW-2005-0008)

**Record:** CW-2005-0008 (compiler id CWC-0261); case NORTHE-002
**Title:** Shillong Man vs State of Meghalaya and Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: A. Hazarika
**Case number / citation:** 2007(1) GLT 228
**Judgment:** 2005-08-05 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-04-15 (2002)
**Place:** East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya; city town: Shillong; police station or unit: Laitumkhrah Police Beat House; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** UB Constable (UBC 747), Laitumkhrah PS, Shillong; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Laitumkhrah PS, Shillong (2 in record)
**Victims:** Shillong man, age 23 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court (single judge) held that 23-year-old businessman \[name withheld\], brutally assaulted by on-duty police at the Rangali Bihu venue on the night of 15-04-2002 and taken to the Laitumkhrah Beat House, died of those injuries on 18-04-2002. Relying on the magisterial enquiry and post-mortem report, the court rejected the SP's cover-up affidavit based on falsehood and held the State failed to discharge its burden. Finding an Article 21 violation, it awarded another Rs 1.5 lakh over the Rs 1 lakh ex gratia already paid (Rs 2.5 lakh total), payable within two months. A murder case (Laitumkhrah PS Case 25(4)02 under Section 302 IPC) was already registered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The affidavit filed by the superintendent of Police, East Khasi Hills is not encouraging. Rather it has tried to cover up the story based on falsehood.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1287374/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Shillong Man vs State of Meghalaya and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-08-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 250,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2007(1) GLT 228', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1287374/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC held police atrocity killed a Shillong man; addl Rs 1.5L (Rs 2.5L total with ex gratia).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2005-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0008)

## Mairang Man and Anr. vs State of Meghalaya and Ors. (CW-2007-0009)

**Record:** CW-2007-0009 (compiler id CWC-0260); case NORTHE-001
**Title:** Mairang Man and Anr. vs State of Meghalaya and Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: T. Vaiphei
**Case number / citation:** AIR 2007 Gau 155; (2007) 3 GLT 864
**Judgment:** 2007-06-29 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-09-02 (1998)
**Place:** West Khasi Hills, Meghalaya; city town: Mairang; police station or unit: Mairang Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating Officer, Mairang Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Mairang man, age 27 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court (single judge) held that a Mairang man, 27, handed by the village durbar to Mairang police on 02-09-1998 on a cattle-theft suspicion, died of custodial violence, rejecting the State's malaria-death claim. The court relied on the District Judge's enquiry which found foul play, contradictory medical reports and remand violations, and found a cover-up in collusion with medical officers. Holding the State strictly liable under Articles 21/226, it awarded Rs 3 lakh compensation to the widow within two months. It directed an enquiry to identify the police personnel involved, with recovery of the compensation from them, leaving civil remedies open. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The State-respondents shall also hold an enquiry to find out the police personnel involved in the custodial death of the deceased

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/496845/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Mairang Man and Anr. vs State of Meghalaya and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-06-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 2007 Gau 155; (2007) 3 GLT 864', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/496845/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC held custodial violence killed a Mairang man; Rs 3L + enquiry to fix responsibility.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0009)

## Langpih Man and Others vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2014-0018)

**Record:** CW-2014-0018 (compiler id CWC-0865); case GAP2-43-006
**Title:** Langpih Man and Others vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Meghalaya High Court; judges: P.C. Pant; T. Nandakumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** WP(C) Nos. 144/2010, 145/2010, 146/2010 and 147/2010 / AIR 2015 Meghalaya 12
**Judgment:** 2014-01-31 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2010-05-14 (2010)
**Place:** West Khasi Hills, Meghalaya; city town: Langpih; police station or unit: 4th Assam Police Battalion, Lampi Border Outposts (under Boko PS, Kamrup, Assam); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Langpih man; Langpih man; Langpih man; Langpih man (4 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 8 lakh (Rs 8,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Meghalaya High Court records the following account. On 14.05.2010, weekly market day at Langpih on the Assam-Meghalaya border, Assam Police personnel fired on civilians, killing a Langpih man, a Langpih man, a Langpih man and a Langpih man and injuring several others; Assam contended a mob had attacked the border outpost. The States of Assam and Meghalaya had each paid Rs. 3 lakh ex-gratia per deceased during the pendency of the writ petitions. The Division Bench held the four deaths in Assam Police firing admitted, fixed strict public-law liability on the State of Assam for the Article 21 violation, and ordered a further Rs. 2 lakh per widow (Rs. 8 lakh total), payable by the State of Assam and the DGP Assam within three months, without prejudice to other legal remedies. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> From the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the writ petitions of this nature for a direction to pay monetary compensation for the deprivation of the fundamental rights of the citizen and for the death of citizen as a result of Police firing is maintainable inasmuch as a remedy for payment of monetary compensation is available in public law based on strict liability for contravention of the fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort. For deciding the amount of compensation to be paid under the public law realm, we have given our anxious consideration to the age of the said four persons and their earnings which are mentioned in the writ petitions and we are of the considered view that each of the writ petitioners should be paid further amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation over and above, the amount of 6 lakhs which are already been received by each of the petioners as ex-gratia.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90203921/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21-22
**display title redacted:** Langpih Man and Others vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-01-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Meghalaya High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Meghalaya High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 800,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 2015 Meghalaya 12', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90203921/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Four deaths in Assam Police firing admitted; Rs. 2L further compensation per widow ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0018)

## Shillong Man vs The State of Meghalaya and Others (CW-2014-0025)

**Record:** CW-2014-0025 (compiler id CWC-0864); case GAP2-43-005
**Title:** Shillong Man vs The State of Meghalaya and Others
**Court:** Meghalaya High Court; judges: T. Nandakumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** WP(C) No. 66/2012
**Judgment:** 2014-03-21 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-09-09 (2011)
**Place:** East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya; city town: Shillong; police station or unit: Traffic Branch, Madanriting Police Station, Shillong; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** UBC Constable No. 1760, Traffic Branch, Madanriting Police Station, East Khasi Hills (1 in record)
**Victims:** Shillong man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 40,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Meghalaya High Court records the following account. Taxi driver \[name withheld\] was intercepted near Nongthymmai on 09.09.2011, taken to Madanriting Traffic Branch over an alleged traffic offence, and assaulted by UBC \[name withheld\] when he could produce only Rs. 170 of the demanded fine, suffering a bleeding lacerated injury to his left eye. A departmental proceeding had already found the constable guilty beyond any shred of doubt and imposed censure. The High Court held the assault an established infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 and awarded Rs. 40,000 as exemplary damages payable jointly or severally by the State, DGP and SP within 40 days. It directed recovery of Rs. 10,000 from the respondent constable salary after payment to the petitioner. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the given case, this Court is of the considered view that the relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages for established infringement of the indefeasible right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is required to be granted to the petitioner as such remedy is available in public law and the purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40093995/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 32
**display title redacted:** Shillong Man vs The State of Meghalaya and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-03-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Meghalaya High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Meghalaya High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 40,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'WP(C) No. 66/2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40093995/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Assault by traffic constable proved; Rs. 40,000 exemplary compensation with recovery from salary.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0025)

## Tura Man vs State of Meghalaya and Others (CW-2018-0004)

**Record:** CW-2018-0004 (compiler id CWC-0262); case SWCUSTOD-042
**Title:** Tura Man vs State of Meghalaya and Others
**Court:** Meghalaya High Court; judges: Tarun Agarwala; S.R. Sen
**Case number / citation:** WP(C) No. 213 of 2014 / 2018 Cri LJ 2885
**Judgment:** 2018-02-28 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-05-12 (2014)
**Place:** West Garo Hills, Meghalaya; city town: Tura; police station or unit: Tura Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (2 in record)
**Victims:** Tura man, age 18 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 15 lakh (Rs 15,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Meghalaya High Court (Division Bench) held that 18-year-old Class XII student, detained from the evening of 12-05-2014 and produced only on 14-05-2014, was beaten and assaulted by Tura police personnel and died on 20-05-2014 of injuries caused in police detention. The court relied on the CID investigation which disbelieved the police version and charge-sheeted police personnel, and found gross human-rights violation. Enhancing the State's deposited Rs 10 lakh, it awarded Rs 15 lakh compensation to the mother. It directed departmental inquiries against the charge-sheeted policemen and the SP, proceedings against negligent doctors, scrutiny of the remand magistrate, and conclusion of the criminal trial within a year. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A young life has been snuffed out on account of police brutality

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173666772/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a — original judgment unnumbered; quote at p.13 of official PDF
**display title redacted:** Tura Man vs State of Meghalaya and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-02-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Meghalaya High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Meghalaya High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2018 Cri LJ 2885', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173666772/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Meghalaya HC (DB) held police brutality killed Balsan Marak; Rs 15L + inquiries. Incident dated 12-05-2014 (detention start).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2018-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0004)

## Meghalaya Police personnel v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. (CW-2022-0001)

**Record:** CW-2022-0001 (compiler id CWC-0271); case NORTHE-012; aliases: CWC-1436
**Title:** Meghalaya Police personnel v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
**Court:** Meghalaya High Court; judges: Sanjib Banerjee; W. Diengdoh
**Case number / citation:** MC (WA) No. 1 of 2022 in WA No. 1 of 2022 / 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 3
**Judgment:** 2022-02-07 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2016-01-15 (2016)
**Place:** Meghalaya; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 311(2)(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Meghalaya Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Meghalaya High Court records the following account. \[name withheld\] of the Meghalaya police was summarily dismissed on 15 January 2016 after a confidential report found he had passed information about police operations and movements to the banned Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA) outfit, at a time when the outfit's violence had killed several police personnel; inquiry was dispensed with under Article 311(2)(b). His departmental appeal was rejected in October 2019 and a Single Judge upheld the dismissal in December 2021. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh dismissed his writ appeal, holding that when a policeman betrays his force to an outlawed outfit the police were combating, inquiry could justifiably be held not reasonably practicable, and that reasons obvious and apparent satisfy the spirit of Article 311(2)(b).

> When a member of the police force was found betraying his own force and supplying information to an extremist outfit that the police organisation was trying to deal with, it was justifiable on the part of the disciplinary authority to consider it to be not reasonably practicable to afford the writ petitioner an opportunity of dealing with the charge against him in the course of any inquiry.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/sanjeeb-ch-marak-vs-state-of-meghalaya-ors-meghalaya-high-corut-409658.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/meghalaya-police-member-passing-info-extremist-outfit-high-court-upholds-removal-inquiry-191873); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/spirit-of-article-3112b-complied-with-meghalaya-high-court-upholds-dismissal-of-police-officer-with-terror-links-without-inquiry)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Meghalaya Police personnel v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-02-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Meghalaya High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Meghalaya High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 3', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/sanjeeb-ch-marak-vs-state-of-meghalaya-ors-meghalaya-high-corut-409658.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/meghalaya-police-member-passing-info-extremist-outfit-high-court-upholds-removal-inquiry-191873', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/spirit-of-article-3112b-complied-with-meghalaya-high-court-upholds-dismissal-of-police-officer-with-terror-links-without-inquiry', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Meghalaya HC dismissed appeal, upholding Art.311(2)(b) dismissal of policeman who fed GNLA; order verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0001)

## Nurul Islam v. State of Meghalaya (CW-2023-0006)

**Record:** CW-2023-0006 (compiler id CWC-0477); case SWCUSTOD-006
**Title:** Nurul Islam v. State of Meghalaya
**Court:** Meghalaya High Court; judges: Sanjib Banerjee; W. Diengdoh
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 12 of 2022
**Judgment:** 2023-03-22 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-03-13 (2013)
**Place:** South West Garo Hills, Meghalaya; city town: Ampati; police station or unit: Ampati PS; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 342; IPC 354; IPC 376(2)(i); IPC 506; POCSO s.6; POCSO s.10
**Officers (gated display forms):** Nurul Islam (Officer-in-Charge) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ampati girl, age 13; Ampati girl, age 17 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Meghalaya High Court dismissed the appeal of OC Ampati PS Nurul Islam, upholding his POCSO court conviction for detaining two minor sisters aged 13 and 17 at the station on 13 March 2013 and molesting them in his chamber, and raping the elder sister at her home on 31 March 2013. The Court rejected the defence that the survivors' alleged prostitution discredited them and that their age was unproved, holding there could be no reasonable doubt as to culpability. It found the March 2022 conviction and sentence called for no interference. The appeal was dismissed without touching the trial court's sentence.

> This is a ghastly case of a policeman, an officer-in-charge of a police station no less, molesting and raping girl children with gay abandon.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134012635/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/meghalaya-high-court-cop-rape-minors-loose-character-survivors-porstitution-conviction-upheld-224657)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 1
**display title redacted:** Nurul Islam v. State of Meghalaya
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Meghalaya High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Meghalaya High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 12 of 2022', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2023-03-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Meghalaya High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Meghalaya High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 12 of 2022', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134012635/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/meghalaya-high-court-cop-rape-minors-loose-character-survivors-porstitution-conviction-upheld-224657', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed appeal; OC Ampati's POCSO conviction upheld without interference.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0006)

## Meghalaya Police BN Constable vs State of Meghalaya and Ors (CW-2025-0079)

**Record:** CW-2025-0079 (compiler id CWC-1385); case cop-ml-hc-1
**Title:** Meghalaya Police BN Constable vs State of Meghalaya and Ors
**Court:** High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong; judges: H. S. Thangkhiew; B. Bhattacharjee
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 70 of 2024 (arising from WP(C) No. 309 of 2024) / 2025:MLHC:236-DB
**Judgment:** 2025-03-27 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2020-12-15 (2020)
**Place:** East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya; police station or unit: 1st Battalion, Meghalaya Police, Mawiong, Shillong; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** BN Constable, 1st Battalion, Meghalaya Police, Mawiong (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court Division Bench upheld the dismissal of a battalion constable for unauthorized absence from duty. The High Court held that the misconduct of absence from General Roll Call without leave stood proved in the departmental inquiry. The High Court found no procedural unfairness where the constable offered no defence witnesses and declined questioning opportunities. The High Court dismissed the writ appeal, leaving the dismissal and the Single Judge's rejection of the challenge intact.

> Resultantly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141431524/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** operative part of judgment dated 27.03.2025
**display title redacted:** Meghalaya Police BN Constable vs State of Meghalaya and Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-03-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'disciplinary upheld', 'source': '2025:MLHC:236-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141431524/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0079](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0079)

## Dr \[name withheld\] vs State of Meghalaya & Ors (CW-2026-0095)

**Record:** CW-2026-0095 (compiler id CWC-1384); case cop-ml-hc-0
**Title:** Dr \[name withheld\] vs State of Meghalaya & Ors
**Court:** High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong; judges: Revati Mohite Dere
**Case number / citation:** Crl. Petn. No. 91 of 2026 / 2026:MLHC:801
**Judgment:** 2026-07-29 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-05-06 (2026)
**Place:** East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya; police station or unit: Mawlai Police Station (complaints received via Mawkynroh Police Outpost); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** BNS 126(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** unspecified, Mawlai Police Station / Mawkynroh Police Outpost, East Khasi Hills (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court quashed two identically worded FIRs registered on the same day against a professor. The High Court held that no cognizable offence was disclosed and that duplicate FIRs on the same allegations cannot stand. The High Court strongly deprecated the police practice of registering FIRs under appropriate sections without first applying mind to the complaint. The High Court directed that any future complaints by the two complainants against law teachers be routed through the Superintendents of Police before action.

> This practice to direct registration of FIRs "under appropriate sections" is strongly deprecated.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142551119/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/meghalaya-high-court/meghalaya-high-court-police-apply-mind-before-registering-fir-545751)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** operative part of judgment dated 29.07.2026
**display title redacted:** Dr \[name withheld\] vs State of Meghalaya & Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-07-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2026:MLHC:801', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142551119/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/meghalaya-high-court/meghalaya-high-court-police-apply-mind-before-registering-fir-545751', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0095](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0095)

## Sairang Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Mizoram and Others (CW-2003-0024)

**Record:** CW-2003-0024 (compiler id CWC-0957); case GAP2-41-001
**Title:** Sairang Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Mizoram and Others
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; bench: Aizawl; judges: S.K. Kar
**Case number / citation:** (2005) 1 GLR 265
**Judgment:** 2003-12-08 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-03-12 (1995)
**Place:** Aizawl, Mizoram; city town: Sairang, Aizawl; police station or unit: Sairang Police Out-Post, Bawngkawn Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Police Act 1861 s.7; IPC 307; IPC 326; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sairang Police Out-Post, Bawngkawn Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Sairang, Aizawl man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench) dismissed the writ petition of Mizoram Police ASI and sustained his removal from service. The court recorded that Yadav shot fellow ASI in the left thigh with his service revolver on 12.03.1995 after a dispute at Sairang out-post. It held the departmental findings rested on evidence, that the criminal acquittal (after witnesses were withheld following an out-of-court settlement) did not bar the penalty, and that removal by the Superintendent of Police as a coordinate authority was legal. Finding no violation of natural justice or bias, the court declined to interfere. Later proceedings: on 27 January 2006, the Gauhati High Court (Division Bench) set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Concluding, I find there is nothing wrong either in the disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner or in passing the order of his removal from service and thus the interference of the court is not called for.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1392989/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Sairang Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Mizoram and Others
**final outcome url:** https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/430553/sn-yadav-vs-state-of-mizoram-and-others/
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-12-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2005) 1 GLR 265', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2006-01-27', 'action_type': 'Order set aside', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court (Division Bench)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'Later proceedings: on 27 January 2006, the Gauhati High Court (Division Bench) set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand.', 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Conviction not standing', 'source': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/430553/sn-yadav-vs-state-of-mizoram-and-others/', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Gauhati High Court (Division Bench)', 'date': '2006-01-27', 'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/430553/sn-yadav-vs-state-of-mizoram-and-others/', 'outcome': 'conviction_set_aside'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1392989/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** overturned
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary text verified: ASI's removal for shooting fellow ASI upheld; writ dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2003-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0024)

## Mizoram Police Constable v. State of Mizoram & Ors. (CW-2020-0010)

**Record:** CW-2020-0010 (compiler id CWC-0662); case SWOTHERM-026
**Title:** Mizoram Police Constable v. State of Mizoram & Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; bench: Aizawl; judges: Michael Zothankhuma
**Case number / citation:** WP(C) No. 99 of 2020
**Judgment:** 2020-11-10 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-03-26 (2014)
**Place:** Mizoram; city town: Mangaldai; police station or unit: 3rd India Reserve Battalion; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Mizoram Police Act 2011 s.92
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, 3rd India Reserve Battalion, Mizoram Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Gauhati High Court records the following account. Constable of the 3rd IR Battalion, posted at Mangaldai, was found intoxicated on CI Ops duty on 25 March 2014 and, on 26 March 2014, entered the battalion church in full uniform with his service rifle while drunk during a service, causing panic. Charge-sheeted under Section 92 of the Mizoram Police Act, 2011, he admitted the charges, and the Appellate Authority altered the penalty to removal from service, implemented on 8 September 2020. The Gauhati High Court held the disciplinary and appellate authorities were the sole judges of facts, found no illegality and a penalty that did not shock the conscience, and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner being from a disciplined force, he should have known better than to enter a place of worship with a rifle, while being under the influence of alcohol, as the said act endangers the lives of the people inside the place of worship.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com](https://livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-384745.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/gauhati-high-court-declines-relief-to-af-constable-dismissed-from-service-for-entering-church-165984); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=600202890100&title=m-s-dawngliana-vs-state-of-mizoram)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Mizoram Police Constable v. State of Mizoram & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-11-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'WP(C) No. 99 of 2020', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-384745.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/gauhati-high-court-declines-relief-to-af-constable-dismissed-from-service-for-entering-church-165984', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=600202890100&title=m-s-dawngliana-vs-state-of-mizoram', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC (Aizawl Bench) dismissed writ, upheld removal of drunk-on-duty constable who entered church with rifle.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2020-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0010)

## Mizoram Police Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial) vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors (CW-2026-0091)

**Record:** CW-2026-0091 (compiler id CWC-1376); case cop-mz-hc-1
**Title:** Mizoram Police Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial) vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors
**Court:** Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench); judges: Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
**Case number / citation:** WP(C)/169/2019 / 2026:GAU-MZ:303
**Judgment:** 2026-06-12 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Aizawl, Mizoram; police station or unit: Mizoram Police (ministerial establishment); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rule 1037 Mizoram Police Manual; Rule 10(7) CCS (CCA) Rules; FR 54(5)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial), Mizoram Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The petitioner was ministerial staff of the Mizoram Police who faced charges of diversion of public funds and underwent successive dismissal and reinstatement rounds. The High Court held that the earlier dismissal orders had been set aside only on procedural grounds and the petitioner had already been restored with liberty for fresh proceedings. The High Court held that the 2016 compulsory-retirement penalty with compassionate pension stood and the intervening suspension periods were rightly treated as non-countable. The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking counting of about 11 years and 14 days of suspension with back benefits.

> I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which accordingly stands dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174883276/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** as reported on IndianKanoon doc/174883276
**display title redacted:** Mizoram Police Upper Division Clerk / Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial) vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-06-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench) recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'disciplinary upheld', 'source': '2026:GAU-MZ:303', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174883276/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Case title is incorrect: the Indian Kanoon record shows '\[name withheld\] vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors', not '\[name withheld\] vs State Of Mizoram And 3 Ors'. The court did not anonymize the case name. If the researcher intended to anonymize the officer's name, this should be noted separately, but the actual case title should be faithfully reproduced.; The officer's name (\[name withheld\]) appears in the case title on the judgment but was replaced with '\[name withheld\]' in the entry. This is inconsistent with the actual record. Anonymization of a convicted/penalized officer is not standard practice for this register unless he is a victim of police misconduct, which he is not.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0091](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0091)

## Smt. Aizawl Woman vs The State Of Mizoram And 7 Ors (CW-2026-0090)

**Record:** CW-2026-0090 (compiler id CWC-1375); case cop-mz-hc-0
**Title:** Smt. Aizawl Woman vs The State Of Mizoram And 7 Ors
**Court:** Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench); judges: Rajesh Mazumdar
**Case number / citation:** WP(C)/12/2026
**Judgment:** 2026-08-27 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Aizawl, Mizoram; police station or unit: Vaivakawn Police Station; Mizoram Police Media Cell; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Section 326(g)/324(5)/191(2) BNS; Section 129 CrPC; Section 153A IPC; Article 226 Constitution of India
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Vaivakawn Police Station, Mizoram Police; Chief Public Relations Officer / Inspector General of Police (Hqrs), Mizoram Police Media Cell (2 in record)
**Victims:** Aizawl woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court held that the Mizoram Police press release naming the petitioner's late husband as the central suspect violated the police media-briefing protocol. The High Court held that the release disclosed evidence theories, forensic details and investigative tactics beyond permissible limits. The High Court held that police personnel on the spot failed to maintain law and order when a mob stoned, torched and looted the petitioner's rented home. The High Court ordered recall of the press release, circulation of the briefing manual, supervised investigation of the mob attack, and assessment of the claimed property loss of Rs. 7,61,130 by a court-appointed assessor.

> The protocol laid down by the police manual was violated when disclosure beyond the permissible factors had been made.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134279893/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** as reported on IndianKanoon doc/134279893
**display title redacted:** Smt. Aizawl Woman vs The State Of Mizoram And 7 Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court (Aizawl Bench) recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'WP(C)/12/2026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134279893/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Section 129 CrPC and Section 153A IPC are cited in the judgment, but the entry lists 'Section 129 BNS' and 'Section 153A BNS' — BNS codes are incorrect for these sections; the judgment uses CrPC/IPC references. It appears the modern BNS equivalent was substituted rather than the actual cited section.; The statute 'Section 129 BNS' does not exist in BNS (which has no Section 129); Section 129 CrPC is the correct citation used in the judgment.; Section 153A IPC is cited in the judgment, not 'Section 153A BNS'. While BNS replaced IPC, the judgment uses IPC numbering and the researcher should faithfully reproduce the sections as cited by the court.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0090](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0090)

## Kiphire Man vs State of Nagaland and Ors. (CW-2004-0005)

**Record:** CW-2004-0005 (compiler id CWC-0275); case NORTHE-016
**Title:** Kiphire Man vs State of Nagaland and Ors.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: B.P. Katakey
**Case number / citation:** (2006) 1 GLR 806
**Judgment:** 2004-12-07 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-07-24 (2001)
**Place:** Kiphire, Nagaland; city town: Kiphire; police station or unit: Kiphire Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Kiphire Police Station; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Kiphire Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Kiphire man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court held that a Kiphire man was locked in Kiphire police station lockup on the night of 24 July 2001 without any legal authority and found dead inside the lockup the next morning, accepting the ADC(J) Tuensang enquiry findings. It found his body was disposed of without following mandatory legal procedure including post-mortem. Though the enquiry could not pin direct responsibility on any individual, the Court awarded Rs 3,00,000 compensation plus Rs 15,000 costs, with half the compensation secured for the children. The finding rests on illegal detention combined with death in custody rather than proven torture. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is concluded that Lt. A Kiphire man was lock up on the night of 24.7.2001 at Kiphire Police Station without legal authority and he was found dead inside the police lock-up the next morning.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/756882/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Kiphire Man vs State of Nagaland and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2004-12-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2006) 1 GLR 806', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/756882/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC held illegal lockup plus death in custody and awarded Rs 3 lakh; matches adverse_finding_compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2004-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0005)

## Harikucha village Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others v. State (CW-1956-0002)

**Record:** CW-1956-0002 (compiler id CWC-1306); case GAP3-91-001
**Title:** Harikucha village Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others v. State
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: Rao, J.; Das, J.
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1955 / (1957) 23 CLT 31
**Judgment:** 1956-11-26 (1956, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1954-11-22 (1954)
**Place:** Odisha; city town: Harikucha village; police station or unit: Balanga Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; IPC 165
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Department, Orissa; Constable (No. 152), Police Department, Orissa (2 in record)
**Victims:** Harikucha village man; Harikucha village man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. An Assistant Sub-Inspector and a Constable visited Harikucha village in connection with a theft case, took a fowl and biri without payment, and the next morning accepted a goat and plantains as gratification for forbearing to act officially. The Special Judge, Sambalpur convicted the ASI under section 161 IPC (2 years RI) and the Constable on two counts under section 165 IPC (1.5 years RI each, concurrent). On 26 November 1956 the Division Bench dismissed their appeal, holding the Superintendent of Police had validly sanctioned prosecution after supervising the investigation and that all charges formed one transaction. The court confirmed both convictions and sentences on the eyewitness evidence. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> All the contentions raised by the learned Counsel fail. The convictions and sentences are therefore confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/103203/lalit-mohan-paramaguru-and-mohan-munda-appellant-hash-the-state-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=516591390000&title=lalit-mohan-paramaguru-and--vs.-the-state)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Harikucha village Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others v. State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Orissa High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Orissa High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1957) 23 CLT 31', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1956-11-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(1957) 23 CLT 31', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/103203/lalit-mohan-paramaguru-and-mohan-munda-appellant-hash-the-state-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=516591390000&title=lalit-mohan-paramaguru-and--vs.-the-state', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bribery convictions of ASI (2y RI) and constable (1.5y RI) confirmed; appeal dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1956-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1956-0002)

## Malkangiri Police Constable v. State of Orissa & Ors. (CW-1974-0004)

**Record:** CW-1974-0004 (compiler id CWC-1307); case GAP3-91-002
**Title:** Malkangiri Police Constable v. State of Orissa & Ors.
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: G. K. Misra; B. K. Ray
**Case number / citation:** O.J.C. No. 240 of 1973 / (1974) 40 CLT 1294
**Judgment:** 1974-08-20 (1974, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1967-03-25 (1967)
**Place:** Malkangiri, Odisha (district at time: Koraput); city town: Malkangiri; police station or unit: Malkangiri Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 342; IPC 392; Orissa Service Code Rules 90, 93, 94
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Malkangiri Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Police constable of Malkangiri P.S. faced an FIR under sections 342/392 IPC in March 1967, was suspended, convicted and fined (conviction upheld on 3 April 1969 with reduced fine), and was dismissed from service in September 1969 after a parallel disciplinary proceeding. He challenged the dismissal alleging delayed subsistence allowance denied him reasonable opportunity and that retrospective dismissal was bad. On 20 August 1974 the Division Bench rejected the challenge to the dismissal itself, holding he had received subsistence amounts and never pleaded inability to attend the enquiry. The court allowed the writ only to the extent of full salary from 3 April 1969 till communication of dismissal, holding dismissal effective 19 September 1969; the dismissal stood. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On the aforesaid analysis the writ application succeeds in part and a writ of mandamus be issued directing payment, of salary as Indicated above.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/91812/banshidhar-panigrahi-appellant-hash-state-of-orissa-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Malkangiri Police Constable v. State of Orissa & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1974-08-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1974) 40 CLT 1294', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/91812/banshidhar-panigrahi-appellant-hash-state-of-orissa-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal of constable for criminal misconduct sustained; writ allowed only for interim salary.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1974-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1974-0004)

## State of Orissa And Etc. vs Trinath Dash And Ors. (CW-1982-0001)

**Record:** CW-1982-0001 (compiler id CWC-0277); case ODISHA-001
**Title:** State of Orissa And Etc. vs Trinath Dash And Ors.
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: B.K. Behera; P.K. Mohanti
**Case number / citation:** Government Appeal No. 101 of 1977 with Criminal Appeals Nos. 105, 106 and 112 of 1977 / (1982) Cri LJ 942
**Judgment:** 1982-01-05 (1982, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1975-07-27 (1975)
**Place:** Nayagarh, Odisha; city town: Nuagaon; police station or unit: Nuagaon Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 342
**Officers (gated display forms):** Trinath Dash (Officer-in-Charge); Assistant Sub-Inspector, Nuagaon Police Station; Writer Constable, Nuagaon Police Station; Constable, Nuagaon Police Station; Constable, Nuagaon Police Station; Constable, Nuagaon Police Station; Constable, Nuagaon Police Station; Constable, Nuagaon Police Station; Constable, Nuagaon Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Nuagaon man; Nuagaon man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** fine
**Sentence type:** fine (fine)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. Nine Nuagaon police personnel were tried for confining theft suspects a Nuagaon man and a Nuagaon man in the lock-up without arrest from 27-07-1975, torturing them, and, after a Nuagaon man died, hanging his body from a tree to fake suicide. The trial court acquitted them of murder (302), grievous hurt (331) and hurt (323) but convicted all under Section 201 IPC, the OIC and ASI under Section 203, and OIC Trinath Dash under Section 342 IPC. The Orissa High Court dismissed the Government appeal against the acquittals and set aside all Section 201/203 convictions, holding murder/culpable homicide unproved and mere shifting of the body no disappearance of evidence. It upheld only OIC Trinath Dash's conviction for wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC (fine Rs 500, default 3 months RI), the sentence being not severe. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The sentence passed against the accused \[name withheld\] who was no other person than the Officer-in-Charge of the police station, for his conviction under this section, cannot, in the circumstances of the case, be said to be severe.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62540/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/104637/state-of-orissa-vs-trinath-dash-and-others-br-trinath-al/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** State of Orissa And Etc. vs Trinath Dash And Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Orissa High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Orissa High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1982) Cri LJ 942', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1982-01-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(1982) Cri LJ 942', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62540/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/104637/state-of-orissa-vs-trinath-dash-and-others-br-trinath-al/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC upheld OIC Trinath Dash's s.342 IPC conviction (Rs 500 fine); acquittals on graver charges maintained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1982-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1982-0001)

## Jajpur Road Man vs Director General Of Police And Ors. (CW-1992-0004)

**Record:** CW-1992-0004 (compiler id CWC-0289); case ODISHA-013
**Title:** Jajpur Road Man vs Director General Of Police And Ors.
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: B.L. Hansaria; K.C. Jagadeb Roy
**Case number / citation:** 1992 (I) OLR 565; 1992 CriLJ 2901; 1993 ACJ 259
**Judgment:** 1992-04-02 (1992, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-08-24 (1990)
**Place:** Jajpur, Odisha; city town: Jajpur Road; police station or unit: Jajpur Road Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jajpur Road man, age 25 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 30,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. A Jajpur Road man, accused in a dacoity case, was arrested and brought to Jajpur Road Police Station on 23 August 1990, where police alleged he committed suicide by hanging inside the station latrine at 5:15 AM the next morning. Although a magisterial inquiry accepted the suicide theory, the Orissa High Court analyzed medical evidence—specifically 300 cc of undigested stomach contents contradicting the 9:00 PM feeding time and suspicious haste in cremating the body with police photographing the funeral pyre—and rejected the suicide claim. The High Court concluded that the deceased died due to police torture in custody in clear violation of Article 21. The Court held the State vicariously liable and directed payment of Rs. 30,000 compensation (Rs. 10,000 to the father and Rs. 20,000 to the young widow). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Because of all the above, we would hold that the case of the opposite parties that a Jajpur Road man had died because of suicidal hanging is not acceptable to us. The only other conclusion which can be drawn on the facts of the case is that he had died due to police torture.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/235397/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Jajpur Road Man vs Director General Of Police And Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1992-04-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 30,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1992 (I) OLR 565; 1992 CriLJ 2901; 1993 ACJ 259', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/235397/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC rejected police claim of suicide in hazat latrine, holding victim died of custodial police torture and awarding Rs. 30,000 compensation against State.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1992-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1992-0004)

## Cuttack Man v. State of Orissa & Anr. (CW-1993-0001)

**Record:** CW-1993-0001 (compiler id CWC-0526); case SWDISPRO-023
**Title:** Cuttack Man v. State of Orissa & Anr.
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: B. L. Hansaria; S. K. Mohanty
**Case number / citation:** O.J.C. No. 8304 of 1992 / (1993) CriLJ 1504
**Judgment:** 1993-01-11 (1993, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-12-01 (1992)
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha; city town: Cuttack; police station or unit: Nayagarh (Circle Inspector of Police); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Havildar, Nayagarh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Cuttack man, age 18 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Orissa High Court awarded Rs 10,000 to a Cuttack man, aged about 18, who was handcuffed and put in chains while hospitalised in the surgery ward of SCB Medical College Hospital, Cuttack, on a Havildar's orders. The Court rejected the justification of unknown anti-social visitors as ipse dixit, holding the chaining uncalled for, ordered by an incompetent rank since only a Deputy Superintendent may order irons under section 56 of the Prisons Act. It held the Orissa Police Manual stood unamended despite Sunil Batra and found a clear violation of Article 21. The State was left free to proceed against the Havildar under law. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The facts of the case leave nothing to doubt that the present is a case of violation of the fundamental right of a Cuttack man under Art. 21 of the Constitution, and keeping in view the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ravikant (supra), we award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to be paid by the State to a Cuttack man

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1451025/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/560988b4e4b014971137e90b)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Cuttack Man v. State of Orissa & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1993-01-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1993) CriLJ 1504', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1451025/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/560988b4e4b014971137e90b', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC held chaining hospitalised 18-year-old violated Art 21; Rs 10k; only DySP may order irons.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1993-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1993-0001)

## Jeraikela Woman vs State Of Orissa And Ors. (CW-1993-0003)

**Record:** CW-1993-0003 (compiler id CWC-0281); case SUPREM-002
**Title:** Jeraikela Woman vs State Of Orissa And Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: J.S. Verma; A.S. Anand; N. Venkatachala
**Case number / citation:** (1993) 2 SCC 746; AIR 1993 SC 1960
**Judgment:** 1993-03-24 (1993, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-12-01 (1987)
**Place:** Sundargarh, Odisha (district at time: Sundergarh); city town: Jeraikela (Bisra); police station or unit: Jeraikela Police Outpost, PS Bisra; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 32
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Jeraikela Police Outpost, PS Bisra; Constable, Jeraikela Police Outpost, PS Bisra (2 in record)
**Victims:** Jeraikela man, age 22 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Jeraikela man, 22, was taken from home into custody at Jeraikela outpost on 01-12-1987 by ASI for a theft inquiry, handcuffed and detained; his body with multiple injuries was found on the railway track the next morning. The Supreme Court rejected the escape-and-train-accident story, confirming on reappraisal the District Judge's finding of death by multiple injuries inflicted in police custody. Holding it a custodial death violating Article 21 and rejecting sovereign immunity, the court awarded Rs 1.5 lakh compensation (term deposit for the mother) plus Rs 10,000 costs to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. It directed the State to ascertain and fix individual responsibility and take appropriate action, in this landmark public-law compensation ruling. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the learned District Judge reached the conclusion that it is a case of custodial death and a Jeraikela man died as a result of the injuries inflicted to him voluntarily while he was in police custody at the Police Outpost Jeraikela. We have reached the same conclusion on a reappraisal of the evidence adduced at the inquiry taking into account the circumstances, which also support that conclusion.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1628260/); [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/12126.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Jeraikela Woman vs State Of Orissa And Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1993-03-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1993) 2 SCC 746; AIR 1993 SC 1960', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1628260/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/12126.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court (3J) held a Jeraikela man beaten to death in Jeraikela custody; Rs 1.5L + Rs 10k costs. Landmark Art-21 compensation law.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1993-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1993-0003)

## Rajgangpur Woman vs State of Orissa (CW-1996-0011)

**Record:** CW-1996-0011 (compiler id CWC-0278); case ODISHA-002
**Title:** Rajgangpur Woman vs State of Orissa
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: S.N. Phukan; A. Pasayat
**Case number / citation:** 1997(I) OLR 384
**Judgment:** 1996-11-14 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-10-03 (1994)
**Place:** Kendrapara, Odisha; city town: Rajgangpur; police station or unit: Kudanagari Out Post, Patakura Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 22; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Kudanagari Out Post, Patakura Police Station; Constable, Kudanagari Out Post, Patakura Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Rajgangpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. School teacher a Rajgangpur man was taken from his school at Rajgangpur on 03-10-1994 by ASI and Constable of Kudanagari Out Post for interrogation in a kidnapping case, with a promise to return him, and vanished. Police claimed he slipped away while taking tea and was alive elsewhere. The Orissa High Court rejected the escape story, holding he was under police control when last seen so the burden lay on police to account for him. Allowing the habeas corpus writ under Article 226, it ordered Rs 1.5 lakh compensation (Rs 25,000 released at once, balance in fixed deposit releasable if police failed to produce or account for him by October 1997), leaving the registered murder case, taken over by the Crime Branch, to proceed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Even if it is accepted that there was no arrest as stated by the opposite parties, yet the fact that a Rajgangpur man was under the control of the police officials cannot be lost sight of.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1859719/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/96245/smt-chanchala-swain-appellant-hash-state-of-orissa-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Rajgangpur Woman vs State of Orissa
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-11-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1997(I) OLR 384', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1859719/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/96245/smt-chanchala-swain-appellant-hash-state-of-orissa-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC allowed habeas writ for teacher taken by Kudanagari police; Rs 1.5L compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1996-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0011)

## Soro Man vs State Of Orissa And Ors. (CW-2003-0006)

**Record:** CW-2003-0006 (compiler id CWC-0283); case ODISHA-007
**Title:** Soro Man vs State Of Orissa And Ors.
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: A.K. Patnaik; P.K. Misra
**Case number / citation:** 2003 (II) OLR 151; 96 (2003) CLT 261; II (2004) ACC 728
**Judgment:** 2003-06-20 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-03-22 (1997)
**Place:** Balasore, Odisha; city town: Soro; police station or unit: Soro Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21; Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Soro Police Station; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Soro Police Station; Officer-in-Charge, Soro Police Station; Constable, Soro Police Station; Constable, Soro Police Station (5 in record)
**Victims:** Soro man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. Petitioner a Soro man visited Soro Police Station on 22 March 1997 to lodge an FIR regarding illegal felling of trees, but was instead detained overnight in the police lock-up. Police claimed he was arrested pursuant to a non-bailable warrant in Special Case No. 23 of 1995, but the Sessions Judge records established that the warrant had been issued against his son \[name withheld\], not the petitioner. The Orissa High Court held that the petitioner was arrested and detained without any authority of law, in direct violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court awarded Rs. 7,000 as compensation and Rs. 3,000 as litigation costs to be paid by the State, with liberty to recover the sum from the responsible police personnel of Soro Police Station. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This was, thus, a clear case of arrest of the petitioner and detention of the petitioner in police custody without any authority of law.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/376706/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Soro Man vs State Of Orissa And Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-06-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2003 (II) OLR 151; 96 (2003) CLT 261; II (2004) ACC 728', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/376706/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC found illegal arrest and overnight detention of petitioner without warrant in place of his son, awarding Rs. 7,000 compensation and Rs. 3,000 costs recoverable from erring police.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0006)

## Simulia Man And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. (CW-2007-0001)

**Record:** CW-2007-0001 (compiler id CWC-0279); case ODISHA-003; aliases: CWC-1439
**Title:** Simulia Man And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors.
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: M.M. Das; B.P. Das
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (exact number not stated in extracted text) / AIR 2007 Orissa 94; (2007) 1 OLR 410
**Judgment:** 2007-02-02 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-02-06 (2002)
**Place:** Balasore, Odisha; city town: Simulia; police station or unit: Simulia Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Simulia man, age 35 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. On 6 February 2002 Simulia police chasing the Dolphine Dynamic bus fired aimlessly at it near Dhobagadia crossing on NH-5 after the driver failed to stop, killing passenger a Simulia man, aged about 35, with a chest gunshot. A criminal case under IPC 304 against Simulia police personnel ended in acquittal, but the OIC admitted in counter-affidavit that a Simulia man died in the police firing. The High Court held that the death resulted from the irresponsible and negligent act of the police and that compensation under Article 226 was appropriate where negligence was writ large. It fixed Rs. 5 lakh as just compensation, directing payment of the Rs. 2.5 lakh balance within three months after adjusting Rs. 1 lakh ex gratia and Rs. 1.5 lakh interim already paid. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> we are of the view that late a Simulia man died consequent upon the irresponsible act of the police in aimlessly firing at the bus, in which the said deceased was traveling as a passenger.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/864050/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/94973/kalpana-mandal-and-others-appellant-hash-state-of-orissa-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Simulia Man And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-02-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 2007 Orissa 94; (2007) 1 OLR 410', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/864050/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/94973/kalpana-mandal-and-others-appellant-hash-state-of-orissa-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Police firing death admitted; Rs.5L compensation for negligent firing.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0001)

## Talcher Man v. State of Orissa (CW-2007-0019)

**Record:** CW-2007-0019 (compiler id CWC-0723); case SWILLEGA-072
**Title:** Talcher Man v. State of Orissa
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: A.K. Ganguly; I. Mahanty
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 8373 of 2004 / 2007(II)OLR573
**Judgment:** 2007-09-06 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-12-29 (2003)
**Place:** Angul, Odisha; city town: Talcher; police station or unit: Kalinga Police Beat House, Talcher, Angul; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Kalinga Police Beat House, Talcher; Assistant Sub-Inspector (in-charge), Kalinga Police Beat House, Talcher; Circle Inspector, Kalinga Police Beat House, Talcher (1 in record)
**Victims:** Talcher man, age 26 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 4.5 lakh (Rs 4,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Orissa High Court (A.K. Ganguly, CJ and I. Mahanty, J.), treating a citizen's letter as PIL, awarded a further Rs 3 lakh to Kastu Behera for the death of his 26-year-old tipper-driver son \[name withheld\] during illegal police custody. The Court found a Talcher man, who was not an accused, was forcibly taken from home on 29 December 2003 and confined for three days in Kalinga Beat House for interrogation in a Sarpanch murder case without any magistrate's order and without the written requisition required by s.160 CrPC, and was found hanging on 31 December 2003. Holding the police guilty of infringing Article 21, the Court ordered the additional sum (over Rs 50,000 ex gratia and Rs 1 lakh interim already paid) with liberty to recover from the erring officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, this Court holds that the police is guilty of causing an infringement of fundamental right of a Talcher man under Article 21 of the Constitution by keeping a Talcher man illegally in their custody and a Talcher man died by allegedly committing suicide in course of such illegal detention.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/707487/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Talcher Man v. State of Orissa
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-09-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 450,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2007(II)OLR573', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/707487/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC PIL judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; Rs 3L additional for 3-day illegal detention + death matches.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0019)

## Mahanga Man vs State of Orissa and Others (CW-2009-0001)

**Record:** CW-2009-0001 (compiler id CWC-0286); case EAST---NORTHEAST-005; aliases: CWC-0553
**Title:** Mahanga Man vs State of Orissa and Others
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: B.P. Das; R.N. Biswal
**Case number / citation:** 2009 (I) OLR 526; 2009 Cri LJ (NOC) 540 (Ori.); (2009) CLT 568 (Suppl Crl)
**Judgment:** 2009-01-06 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-02-01 (2003)
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha; city town: Mahanga; police station or unit: Mahanga Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21; Article 226; Police Act 1861; Orissa Police Manual Rule 239-B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Mahanga Police Station; Officer-in-Charge, Salipur Police Station; Circle Inspector, Salipur Police Station; Sub-Inspector (2nd Officer), Mahanga Police Station; Constable, Mahanga Police Station; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Mahanga Police Station (3 in record)
**Victims:** Mahanga man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. A Mahanga man was arrested by Mahanga police in connection with Mahanga PS Case No. 12 of 2003 and detained in the police hazat without being produced before a magistrate. On 1 February 2003, his wife \[name withheld\] was summoned to the station under pretext of bail and found him dead inside the hazat. A judicial fact-finding inquiry by retired judge Justice C.R. Pal established that the police failed to post a sentry guard in gross violation of police regulations, directly enabling the custodial death. The Orissa High Court held the State vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the police officers and awarded Rs. 3,00,000 in compensation to the petitioner widow. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> However, the irresistible conclusion would be that the State Government is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner because the deceased has lost his life and the petitioner has lost her husband due to negligent act of the concerned Police Officers.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/99655/ahalya-pradhan-vs-state-of-orissa-and-others/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/526276/ahalya-pradhan-vs-state-orissa-ors); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea892e607dba378d9d43f8)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Mahanga Man vs State of Orissa and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-01-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2009 (I) OLR 526; 2009 Cri LJ (NOC) 540 (Ori.); (2009) CLT 568 (Suppl Crl)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/99655/ahalya-pradhan-vs-state-of-orissa-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/526276/ahalya-pradhan-vs-state-orissa-ors', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea892e607dba378d9d43f8', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC held State vicariously liable for custodial death in police hazat due to gross police negligence and failure to provide sentry watch, awarding Rs. 3 lakh compensation to widow.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2009-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0001)

## Barada Man vs State of Orissa and Others (CW-2011-0033)

**Record:** CW-2011-0033 (compiler id CWC-1311); case GAP3-94-002
**Title:** Barada Man vs State of Orissa and Others
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: V. Gopala Gowda; B. N. Mahapatra
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 17011 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2011-07-19 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-10-03 (2006)
**Place:** Jajpur, Odisha; city town: Barada; police station or unit: Dharmasala Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Bihar and Orissa Excise Act s.47(a); Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Excise Inspector, Jajpur, Excise Department; Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmasala Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Barada man, age 32 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. A Barada man, aged 32, was arrested in an excise case on 29/30 September 2006, remanded to Jajpur Sub-Jail, and died on 3 October 2006 after admission to the district hospital; his widow alleged illegal detention and custodial torture, which the State denied. The court noted it was undisputed that he died in jail custody days after arrest, and that the State's counter said nothing on whether any medical test was conducted or the apex court's arrest guidelines were followed. Applying D.K. Basu custodial jurisprudence under Article 21, the court directed the State Government to pay Rs 1 lakh ex gratia to the bereaved family within two weeks, structured as fixed deposits for the widow, children and aged parents. It did not fix personal liability on any officer or order prosecution. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the facts situation, considering the age of the deceased and that he was the only bread winner of the bereaved family and died only after his arrest, we deem it just and proper to direct opposite party- State Government to pay ex gratia of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) to the bereaved family of the deceased within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143143637/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Barada Man vs State of Orissa and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-07-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(C) No. 17011 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143143637/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Death in custody days after arrest with unexplained guideline breach; HC awarded Rs 1 lakh ex gratia.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0033)

## Talamitingi Man vs State Of Orissa And Others (CW-2011-0018)

**Record:** CW-2011-0018 (compiler id CWC-0288); case ODISHA-012
**Title:** Talamitingi Man vs State Of Orissa And Others
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: B.N. Mahapatra; V. Gopala Gowda
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Crl.) No.379 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2011-09-20 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-04-13 (2009)
**Place:** Koraput, Odisha; city town: Talamitingi; police station or unit: Kakirigumma Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21; Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Subedar, Special Operation Group Assault Team No. 23; Sub-Inspector, Special Operation Group (2 in record)
**Victims:** Talamitingi man, age 28 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 4 lakh (Rs 4,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. A Talamitingi man, aged 28, of Karon Jajhola (Narayanpatna) then staying at Talamitingi, was found dead on 13 April 2009 after an exchange of fire between SOG assault teams (Dy. Subedar's Team No.23 and SI 's team) and Maoists near the village. Police claimed he was an armed Maoist and recovered weapons near the body; his widow alleged he was an unarmed tribal shot by jawans and that the body was not handed over (co-villagers' affidavits), while police claimed handover with acknowledgement. The SP's report conceded it could not be conclusively established that a Talamitingi man fired at police or belonged to the attacking group, noting his hand wash was never taken; the OHRC had awarded Rs 1.5 lakh. The High Court held it could not be said he was a CPI (Maoist) member or fired at police, applied respondeat superior to an innocent death in cross-fire, directed Rs 4 lakh inclusive of interest to the widow, and declined further investigation. The court did not find a staged encounter. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is not uncommon that in a cross firing between Police and anti-social(s), some times an innocent person is being caught and killed. If life of an innocent person is taken away by Police during the course of any encounter between Police and anti-social(s), such case(s) is/are governed by the legal maxim "respondeat superior" and thus the State is liable for the wrong done by the Police.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140389596/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Talamitingi Man vs State Of Orissa And Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-09-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 400,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(Crl.) No.379 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140389596/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC rejected police claim that slain tribal was an armed Maoist, holding State liable under respondeat superior for police killing an innocent villager and awarding Rs. 4 lakh compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0018)

## Athagarh Man vs State Of Orissa And Others (CW-2011-0023)

**Record:** CW-2011-0023 (compiler id CWC-0285); case ODISHA-009
**Title:** Athagarh Man vs State Of Orissa And Others
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: B.N. Mahapatra; V. Gopala Gowda
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 10891 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2011-12-22 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-06-14 (2007)
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha; city town: Athagarh; police station or unit: Athagarh Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21; Article 226; Article 227; CrPC 47; IPC 457; IPC 302; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Athagarh Police Station; Constable, Athagarh Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Athagarh man, age 20 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 4 lakh (Rs 4,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. On 14 June 2007, an Athagarh police team led by ASI unlawfully scaled the boundary wall of Rohit Behera house late at night without a warrant, ostensible justification, or woman officer, searching for an individual not involved in any cognizable offence. In the course of the raid, 20-year-old an Athagarh man died when police entered the room where he was asleep. The Orissa State Human Rights Commission found that although physical assault was not proved, the proximate cause of death was fright caused by the unauthorized police raid, breaching Section 47 CrPC and Article 21. The Orissa High Court affirmed these findings and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000, directing the State to pay the additional Rs. 3,00,000 with 9% interest on default. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The fact that an Athagarh man did not die due to assault by the Police does not mitigate the violation of human right of an Athagarh man and his family members. The Police was guilty of entering into the house of the petitioner in the late hours of the night of occurrence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107672213/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Athagarh Man vs State Of Orissa And Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-12-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 400,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(C) No. 10891 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107672213/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC upheld OHRC finding of police excesses in nocturnal house raid violating Article 21 and Section 47 CrPC, enhancing compensation for youth death from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 4 lakh.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0023)

## Bhubaneswar Man vs State Of Orissa And Others (CW-2016-0002)

**Record:** CW-2016-0002 (compiler id CWC-0292); case ODISHA-016
**Title:** Bhubaneswar Man vs State Of Orissa And Others
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: Dr. B.R. Sarangi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 13941 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2016-01-28 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-06-05 (2012)
**Place:** Khordha, Odisha; city town: Bhubaneswar; police station or unit: Saheed Nagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21; Article 226; Article 227
**Officers (gated display forms):** Alok Kumar Jena (Inspector In-Charge); Banamali Das (Assistant Sub-Inspector) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Bhubaneswar man, age 27 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. On 5 June 2012, 27-year-old a Bhubaneswar man was assaulted by members of the public after an altercation and brought injured to Saheed Nagar Police Station in Bhubaneswar. Rather than sending him immediately for medical treatment, police detained him for several hours to register a case and carry out spot investigation; he subsequently collapsed from pain and was declared dead upon arrival at Capital Hospital. Both the CBI inquiry and a Magisterial inquiry concluded that the death occurred in custody due to gross police negligence in withholding timely medical aid. The Orissa High Court held that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses access to emergency medical care, awarded Rs. 5,00,000 compensation to the deceased family, and directed that the full amount be recovered from IIC Alok Kumar Jena and IO Banamali Das. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Allowing a Bhubaneswar man @ Pigi (deceased) to remain in police station and directing for investigation without taking proper care of the injured a Bhubaneswar man @ Pigi itself indicates that due care has not been taken by the police authority causing negligence in their duty. Therefore, failure to provide timely medical treatment amounts to breach of right to life.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144823053/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/111047/rabindranath-mohapatra-appellant-hash-state-of-orissa-respondent/); [sambadenglish.com](https://sambadenglish.com/odisha-rights-body-victims-family-hail-cbi-probe-custodial-death/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Bhubaneswar Man vs State Of Orissa And Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-01-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(C) No. 13941 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144823053/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/111047/rabindranath-mohapatra-appellant-hash-state-of-orissa-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sambadenglish.com/odisha-rights-body-victims-family-hail-cbi-probe-custodial-death/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC held failure to provide timely medical care to injured arrestee caused death in police custody violating Article 21, awarding Rs. 5 lakh compensation recoverable from IIC and IO.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2016-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0002)

## Mahakalpada Man vs State Of Orissa And Others (CW-2018-0002)

**Record:** CW-2018-0002 (compiler id CWC-0284); case ODISHA-008
**Title:** Mahakalpada Man vs State Of Orissa And Others
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: Dr. B.R. Sarangi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(CRL) No.385 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2018-01-25 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-12-16 (1998)
**Place:** Kendrapara, Odisha; city town: Mahakalpada; police station or unit: Mahakalpada Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21; Article 226; Article 227
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge, Mahakalpada Police Station; Investigating Officer, Mahakalpada Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Mahakalpada man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. Petitioner a Mahakalpada man was repeatedly summoned, threatened, and arrested by the Officer-in-Charge of Mahakalpada Police Station in connection with a 1992 booth-snatching case, despite having no connection to the crime and not being named in the chargesheet. Although the SDJM Kendrapara discharged him upon verifying his identity documents, police continued to harass and threaten him to pose as absconding accused \[name withheld\]. The Orissa High Court held that the petitioner suffered mental agony, harassment, and custodial torture violating Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court awarded Rs. 2,00,000 compensation to be paid by the State within three months and recovered in equal proportion from the salaries of the erring police officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Applying the law laid down by the apex Court to the present case, there is no iota of doubt that the petitioner had undergone mental torture at the hands of insensible police officer.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165166297/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** Mahakalpada Man vs State Of Orissa And Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-01-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(CRL) No.385 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165166297/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC awarded Rs. 2 lakh compensation to petitioner wrongfully arrested, detained, and subjected to custodial mental torture under mistaken identity as accused \[name withheld\], recoverable from erring officers salaries.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2018-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0002)

## Cuttack Police Inspector v. State of Orissa; \[name withheld\] v. State of Orissa (CW-2020-0009)

**Record:** CW-2020-0009 (compiler id CWC-0501); case SWDERELI-011
**Title:** Cuttack Police Inspector v. State of Orissa; \[name withheld\] v. State of Orissa
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: S.K. Sahoo
**Case number / citation:** CRA Nos. 207 and 210 of 1988
**Judgment:** 2020-11-09 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1985-05-04 (1985)
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha; city town: Cuttack; police station or unit: Purighat Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 323; IPC 324; IPC 471; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Purighat Police Station, Cuttack; Sub-Inspector, Purighat Police Station, Cuttack (2 in record)
**Victims:** Cuttack man; Cuttack resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The High Court partly allowed the appeals of an Inspector and a Sub-Inspector of Purighat station in the 1985 custodial-death case of a Cuttack man: it set aside the Section 304-II/34 and 342/34 convictions for want of proof but upheld the Section 323/34 and 471/34 convictions for using false seizure lists as genuine, additionally convicting both under Section 324/34. Both officers were ordered to surrender within two weeks to serve the concurrent sentences (maximum one year). The Court also awarded Rs.3 lakh compensation to the deceased's legal representatives for the custodial violence. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I have also held that there are some irregular features in the preparation of seizure list Ext.23/3 and the contents of seizure list Ext.42 are false.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162192708/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/custodial-violence-orissa-hc-directs-septuagenarian-ex-cops-to-serve-imprisonment-in-35-year-old-custodial-death-case-165741)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Cuttack Police Inspector v. State of Orissa; \[name withheld\] v. State of Orissa
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['subcategory'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Orissa High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Orissa High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'CRA Nos. 207 and 210 of 1988', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2020-11-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'CRA Nos. 207 and 210 of 1988', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162192708/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/custodial-violence-orissa-hc-directs-septuagenarian-ex-cops-to-serve-imprisonment-in-35-year-old-custodial-death-case-165741', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment text verified; 304-II set aside but 323/471 upheld + 324 added with Rs.3L compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2020-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0009)

## Dhenkanal Man and Another vs State Of Odisha & Others (CW-2021-0002)

**Record:** CW-2021-0002 (compiler id CWC-0287); case EAST---NORTHEAST-006; aliases: CWC-0554
**Title:** Dhenkanal Man and Another vs State Of Odisha & Others
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: Dr. S. Muralidhar; Biswajit Mohanty
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 13774 of 2005 / 2021 LiveLaw (Ori) 13
**Judgment:** 2021-01-27 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-06-07 (2005)
**Place:** Dhenkanal, Odisha; city town: Dhenkanal; police station or unit: Dhenkanal Town Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21; Article 226; Article 227
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector-in-Charge, Dhenkanal Town Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Dhenkanal Town Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Dhenkanal man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Dhenkanal man was found writhing in pain inside a Dhenkanal liquor shop and brought into Dhenkanal Town Police Station at 3:20 AM on 7 June 2005. Despite his visibly precarious physical state, police left him unattended on the police station verandah for six hours without arranging medical treatment, and he subsequently succumbed to ante-mortem cranio-cerebral injuries. The Division Bench of the Orissa High Court held that regardless of whether police caused the initial injuries, keeping an injured arrestee in custody for six hours without medical attention constituted gross and fatal negligence attracting strict liability for custodial death under Article 21. The Court directed the State of Odisha to pay Rs. 5,00,000 compensation to the deceased parents. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Even if it is not established that the ante mortem injuries found on his person during post-mortem were caused by the Police, the law of strict liability for the negligence of the police in not meeting the basic minimum standard of care in providing him prompt medical attention would stand attracted. The police have to be held liable for the avoidable death of a Dhenkanal man, while in their custody, on account of their negligence.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/custodial-death-matter-orissa-hc-5-lakh-388448.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/death-in-police-custody-orissa-high-court-5-lakh-as-compensation-to-parents-of-deceased-169225); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175228761/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** Dhenkanal Man and Another vs State Of Odisha & Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-01-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2021 LiveLaw (Ori) 13', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/custodial-death-matter-orissa-hc-5-lakh-388448.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/death-in-police-custody-orissa-high-court-5-lakh-as-compensation-to-parents-of-deceased-169225', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175228761/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC applied strict liability for custodial death arising from police negligence in delaying medical treatment to critically injured arrestee for six hours, awarding Rs. 5 lakh compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2021-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0002)

## Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs The State Of Odisha (with Pratap Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Odisha) (CW-2021-0003)

**Record:** CW-2021-0003 (compiler id CWC-0282); case SWCUSTOD-009
**Title:** Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs The State Of Odisha (with Pratap Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Odisha)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Ashok Bhushan; Ajay Rastogi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 125-126 of 2021 / (2021) 3 SCC 529
**Judgment:** 2021-02-11 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1985-05-04 (1985)
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha; city town: Cuttack; police station or unit: Purighat Police Station, Cuttack; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 324; IPC 323; IPC 471; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Pravat Chandra Mohanty (Inspector); Pratap Kumar Choudhury (Sub-Inspector) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Cuttack man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.5 yrs; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. On the night of 04/05-05-1985 a Cuttack man was called to Purighat PS, Cuttack, and beaten through the night with lathi/batten by Inspector and SI, dying in hospital; police fabricated an FIR with his forged signature to cover up. The trial court convicted both of culpable homicide (Section 304-II); the High Court acquitted of 304-II but convicted under Sections 324/323/471 read with 34 IPC with one year's SI plus Rs 3 lakh compensation. The Supreme Court affirmed the Section 324 conviction, refusing compounding since custodial violence is a crime against humanity and Article 21 violation. Given the appellants' 75+ age, it cut imprisonment to six months and added Rs 3.5 lakh each as compensation to the legal heirs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The custodial violence on the deceased which led to the death is abhorrent and not acceptable in the civilized society. The offence committed by the accused is crime not against the deceased alone but was against humanity and clear violations of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165413021/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162192708/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/custodial-violence-supreme-court-police-officers-compounding-169773); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/custodial-violence-abhorrent-unacceptable-crime-against-humanity-supreme-court)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 40
**display title redacted:** Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs The State Of Odisha (with Pratap Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Odisha)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2021) 3 SCC 529', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2021-02-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2021) 3 SCC 529', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165413021/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162192708/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/custodial-violence-supreme-court-police-officers-compounding-169773', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/custodial-violence-abhorrent-unacceptable-crime-against-humanity-supreme-court', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court upheld s.324 IPC conviction of 2 Purighat officers; 1yr->6mo + Rs 3.5L each over HC's Rs 3L.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2021-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0003)

## Jeypore Man and Another v. State of Odisha and Others (CW-2021-0008)

**Record:** CW-2021-0008 (compiler id CWC-0290); case ODISHA-014; aliases: CWC-1435
**Title:** Jeypore Man and Another v. State of Odisha and Others
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: S. Muralidhar; A.K. Mohapatra
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal No. 869 of 2021
**Judgment:** 2021-11-11 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2016-10-29 (2016)
**Place:** Koraput, Odisha; city town: Jeypore; police station or unit: Jeypore Town Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector In-Charge, Jeypore Town Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Jeypore Town Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Jeypore man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 30,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. A Jeypore man @ Abhijit Mohuria was illegally detained at Jeypore Town police station from 29 October to 2 November 2016. After the SP Koraput's report drew a blank, the OHRC's own investigation wing established the detention and recommended (7 September 2021) registration of a regular criminal case, Rs.30,000 State compensation, and recovery from the Inspector In-Charge and Sub-Inspector equally. The officers' writ challenge failed before a Single Judge (29 October 2021). A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice A.K. Mohapatra dismissed their writ appeal, holding victims of police excess cannot be expected to produce records controlled by the police themselves, and calling the compensation amount insubstantial.

> That enquiry came up with the finding that Abhijit Mohuria was illegally detained between 29th October and 2nd November, 2016.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/police-excesses-ohrc-orissa-hc-404065.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/ability-provide-redress-victims-state-police-excesses-role-human-rights-bodies-significant-orissa-high-court-185551); [livelaw-bennett.refread.com](https://livelaw-bennett.refread.com/pdf_upload/police-excesses-ohrc-orissa-hc-404065.pdf); [indialegallive.com](https://indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/courts-news/orissa-high-court-upholds-single-judge-order-not-providing-relief-to-policemen-held-guilty-for-human-rights-violations-by-ohrc/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Jeypore Man and Another v. State of Odisha and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-11-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 30,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Writ Appeal No. 869 of 2021', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/police-excesses-ohrc-orissa-hc-404065.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/ability-provide-redress-victims-state-police-excesses-role-human-rights-bodies-significant-orissa-high-court-185551', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://livelaw-bennett.refread.com/pdf_upload/police-excesses-ohrc-orissa-hc-404065.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/courts-news/orissa-high-court-upholds-single-judge-order-not-providing-relief-to-policemen-held-guilty-for-human-rights-violations-by-ohrc/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC dismissed officers' appeal, sustaining Rs.30,000 for 5-day illegal detention; order text verified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2021-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0008)

## Chandrapur Man vs State Of Odisha And Others (CW-2023-0005)

**Record:** CW-2023-0005 (compiler id CWC-0280); case EAST---NORTHEAST-007; aliases: CWC-0869
**Title:** Chandrapur Man vs State Of Odisha And Others
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: S. Muralidhar; M.S. Raman
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 13508 of 2010 / 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 38
**Judgment:** 2023-03-15 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2010-06-03 (2010)
**Place:** Rayagada, Odisha; city town: Chandrapur; police station or unit: Chandrapur Police Station / CRPF camp, Rayagada; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 14; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 22
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, CRPF Camp Rayagada / Chandrapur Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chandrapur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. Kandha tribal man a Chandrapur man, collecting firewood, was caught by CRPF personnel during combing operations near Gudari-Chandrapur, brought to the Chandrapur camp and mercilessly beaten, dying on 03-06-2010. The Orissa High Court (Chief Justice's bench) rejected the exhaustion-after-long-walk story, relying on post-mortem injuries, the failure to explain custody injuries, and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 first by the CRPF and then the police. Holding both jointly liable for torturing him to death in custody after labelling him a Maoist, it awarded Rs 10 lakh total (Rs 5 lakh each by CRPF and Odisha State Police) within eight weeks (6% interest on delay). It also urged inquiry against government doctors who gave a questionable medical report. (Force recorded as state_police; liability joint with CRPF.). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is not a mere coincidence that the deceased tribal person who was tortured to death while in custody after being labelled a maoist with not even an iota of evidence belonged to the poorer sections of the society. He had no one to represent his interests or to give him legal assistance while in custody. The legal system appears to have completely failed him.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55271959/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/orissa-high-court-custodial-death-tribal-man-compensation-wife-crpf-violation-of-article-22-of-constitution-legal-aid-224018); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/maria-kadaisma-kadaiska-salmina-v-state-of-odisha-15-march-2023-463947.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** Chandrapur Man vs State Of Odisha And Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Audit fix: duplicate record CW-2023-0038 (same court, case number and judgment date) merged into this record; its sources are kept here and its URL redirects here.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-03-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 38', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-25
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55271959/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/orissa-high-court-custodial-death-tribal-man-compensation-wife-crpf-violation-of-article-22-of-constitution-legal-aid-224018', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC (CJ bench) held tribal man tortured to death in custody; Rs 10L joint CRPF + Odisha police liability.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0005)

## Bhadrak Man v. State of Odisha & Ors. (CW-2024-0030)

**Record:** CW-2024-0030 (compiler id CWC-0866); case GAP2-44-001
**Title:** Bhadrak Man v. State of Odisha & Ors.
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: S. K. Panigrahi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 27928 of 2023
**Judgment:** 2024-02-08 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2018-04-16 (2018)
**Place:** Bhadrak, Odisha; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Odisha Police escort party (0 in record)
**Victims:** Bhadrak man, age 22 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Orissa High Court held that the death of 22-year-old a Bhadrak man, who fell from a running train on 16 April 2018 while being escorted by Odisha police from Kolkata to Bhadrak after his arrest in Goa, was a custodial death for which the authorities are responsible and the State vicariously liable. The Court found the police owed a duty of care to the arrested person and held that foul play could not be ruled out. Since investigation and departmental inquiry were still pending, the Court awarded Rs.2,00,000 as interim compensation. It directed the State to deposit the amount in the Court within ten weeks, without prejudice to the legal representatives' right to claim compensation in private law proceedings. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a case of custodial death and the authorities are responsible for the same.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/basanti-puhan-v-state-of-odisha-08-february-2024-528090.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/orissa-high-court/orissa-high-court-orders-compensation-death-police-custody-252283)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Bhadrak Man v. State of Odisha & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-02-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(C) No. 27928 of 2023', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/basanti-puhan-v-state-of-odisha-08-february-2024-528090.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/orissa-high-court/orissa-high-court-orders-compensation-death-police-custody-252283', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC held death in police escort a custodial death and ordered Rs.2 lakh interim compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0030)

## Union of India & Ors. v. CRPF Head Constable (CW-2024-0036)

**Record:** CW-2024-0036 (compiler id CWC-1124); case GAP3-135-003
**Title:** Union of India & Ors. v. CRPF Head Constable
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: D. Y. Chandrachud; Manoj Misra
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 6135 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 4106 of 2021) / 2024 INSC 392; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 845
**Judgment:** 2024-05-08 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-06-18 (2005)
**Place:** Odisha; police station or unit: Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Forest Camp Training; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** CRPF Act 1949 s.11; CRPF Rules Rule 27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Odisha resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. CRPF Head Constable was charged with abusing and assaulting Hawaldar an Odisha resident with a stick on 18 June 2005 during Forest Camp Training, with injuries confirmed medically. He was compulsorily retired on 16 February 2006 after an inquiry found the charges proved. The Supreme Court held Rule 27 CRPF Rules intra vires, found no perversity in the enquiry, and held the penalty not shockingly disproportionate for a member of a disciplined force. It allowed the Union's appeal, set aside the Orissa High Court orders, dismissed the writ petition, and affirmed compulsory retirement.

> Rather, considering his past service, already a sympathetic view has been taken in the matter and no further latitude need be shown to the respondent who was part of a disciplined force and has been found guilty of assaulting his colleague.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190417882/); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-compulsory-retirement-crpf-head-constable); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/05/20/punishment-of-compulsory-retirement-crpf-rules-intra-vires-crpf-act-supreme-court-answers/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 35
**display title redacted:** Union of India & Ors. v. CRPF Head Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-05-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2024 INSC 392; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 845', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190417882/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-compulsory-retirement-crpf-head-constable', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/05/20/punishment-of-compulsory-retirement-crpf-rules-intra-vires-crpf-act-supreme-court-answers/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified; CRPF head constable's compulsory retirement for assaulting colleague affirmed (disciplinary_upheld).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0036)

## Cuttack Man vs State Of Odisha & Others (CW-2026-0031)

**Record:** CW-2026-0031 (compiler id CWC-0291); case ODISHA-015; aliases: CWC-1447
**Title:** Cuttack Man vs State Of Odisha & Others
**Court:** Orissa High Court; judges: R.K. Pattanaik
**Case number / citation:** CRLMP No.790 of 2026 / 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 87
**Judgment:** 2026-07-23 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-05-12 (2026)
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha; city town: Cuttack; police station or unit: Lalbag Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (1 in record)
**Victims:** Cuttack man, age 63 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 30,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Orissa High Court records the following account. A Cuttack man, a 63-year-old furniture shop owner, was arrested from his shop near Cuttack Chandi Mandir Chowk on 12 May 2026 by Lalbag Police Station on a purported non-bailable warrant in a 2001 criminal case. Subsequent judicial inquiries by the SDJM Bhubaneswar confirmed that the warrant was a counterfeit forgery bearing a fake court seal, and that Mohapatra had no connection whatsoever to the case. The Orissa High Court found the arrest and detention prima facie illegal in violation of Article 21. The Court awarded Rs. 30,000 interim compensation to the petitioner, recoverable from the police or court officials found responsible upon conclusion of inquiries by the SDJM and DCP Cuttack. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Depending on the outcome of the enquiry to be held by the learned court below and also opposite party No.2, this Court is inclined to award a compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) payable to the petitioner in view of the illegal arrest and detention prima facie proved considering the materials on record, recovery of which, shall be from the police officials/staff whosoever responsible either of the P.S. concerned or the court below shall be subject to the result of enquiry held and concluded.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/31/bikram-mohapatra-v-state-of-odisha-690711.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/orissa-high-court/orissa-high-court-orders-enquiry-compensation-illegal-detention-forged-nbw-543745); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53194397/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Cuttack Man vs State Of Odisha & Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-07-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Orissa High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Orissa High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 30,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 87', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/31/bikram-mohapatra-v-state-of-odisha-690711.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/orissa-high-court/orissa-high-court-orders-enquiry-compensation-illegal-detention-forged-nbw-543745', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53194397/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Orissa HC held arrest on forged NBW prima facie illegal detention violating Article 21, awarding Rs. 30,000 compensation recoverable from police/court personnel responsible.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0031)

## C. V. vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-1999-0004)

**Record:** CW-1999-0004 (compiler id CWC-0293); case PUDUCH-001
**Title:** C. V. vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: M. Karpagavinayagam
**Case number / citation:** Crl.O.P. No. 167 of 1998 / (1999) 04 MAD CK 0016
**Judgment:** 1999-04-19 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-07-30 (1993)
**Place:** Puducherry, Puducherry; city town: Puducherry; police station or unit: Grand Bazaar Police Station, Pondicherry Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 366; IPC 376(2)(a)(iii); IPC 376(2)(g)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (6 in record)
**Victims:** Puducherry woman, age 22 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court recorded that prima facie materials proved 22-year-old the complainant, a Dalit woman, was gang-raped by Pondicherry Grand Bazaar police personnel who took her from Sitharasur village in a police van on the night of 29/30 July 1993 on the pretext of tracing a theft suspect. The Court noted the offence occurred in Tamil Nadu (Vellamai, Villupuram district) while she was in their custody, and held the Union Territory of Pondicherry vicariously liable as their employer. It directed the Chief Secretary to pay Rs 1,00,000 compensation to the victim and ordered further investigation adding SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provisions. The criminal trial outcome is not recorded in this order.

> there are prima facie materials to prove that the victim \[the complainant\] was gang-raped by the Police personnel attached to the Pondicherry Grand Bazaar Police Station.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/7900/c-vijaya-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** C. V. vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1999-04-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1999) 04 MAD CK 0016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/7900/c-vijaya-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC recorded prima facie custodial gang-rape by Pondicherry police and awarded Rs 1 lakh; matches adverse_finding_compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 22, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'the complainant'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1999-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0004)

## Puducherry Police personnel and others v. State by Superintendent of Police, CID (CW-2018-0028)

**Record:** CW-2018-0028 (compiler id CWC-0838); case GAP2-39-001
**Title:** Puducherry Police personnel and others v. State by Superintendent of Police, CID
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: M. V. Muralidaran
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 995, 996 and 1051 of 2002
**Judgment:** 2018-10-29 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-12-29 (1993)
**Place:** Puducherry, Puducherry; city town: Puducherry; police station or unit: Odiansalai Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 201; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Odiansalai Police Station; Police personnel, Odiansalai Police Station; Police personnel, Odiansalai Police Station (3 in record)
**Victims:** Puducherry man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 7 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Puducherry man @ a Puducherry man was brought to Odiansalai police station on 29 December 1993 for interrogation and beaten to death by the station police officers; Assistant Surgeon V. Srinivasan (A11) then issued a false first post-mortem certificate attributing death to cirrhotic haemorrhage. A second post-mortem on 3 January 1994 showed death by shock from multiple blunt injuries. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry (S.C. No. 11/1995, 24.06.2002) convicted three policemen (A2-A4) under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC with seven years rigorous imprisonment plus Section 201 convictions, and convicted others including the doctor under Section 201. The High Court dismissed Crl.A. Nos. 995, 996 and 1051 of 2002 by common judgment dated 29 October 2018, upholding the convictions; the Supreme Court on 17 September 2025 affirmed the A2-A4 convictions while setting aside only the A6-A8 Section 201 convictions and reducing the doctors sentence to a fine. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the public has lost faith in the police and had to seek help from the court for redress of grievances

**Sources (3):** [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=218102180900&title=sundararaj-vs-state-by-superintendent-of-police-cid); [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/43383/43383_2018_5_102_64274_Order_17-Sep-2025.pdf); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/hc-upholds-conviction-of-cops-doctor-in-custodial-death-case-461488.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Puducherry Police personnel and others v. State by Superintendent of Police, CID
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 995, 996 and 1051 of 2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2018-10-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 995, 996 and 1051 of 2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=218102180900&title=sundararaj-vs-state-by-superintendent-of-police-cid', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/43383/43383_2018_5_102_64274_Order_17-Sep-2025.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/hc-upholds-conviction-of-cops-doctor-in-custodial-death-case-461488.html', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC (M.V. Muralidaran, J.) common judgment 29.10.2018 in Crl.A. 995, 996, 1051/2002 upheld trial-court convictions for 1993 Odiansalai custodial death; corroborated by SC order 17.09.2025 and PTI report (HC full text paywalled).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0028)

## Puducherry Police Police officer and Others vs State by Superintendent of Police (CW-2025-0018)

**Record:** CW-2025-0018 (compiler id CWC-0295); case PUDUCH-003
**Title:** Puducherry Police Police officer and Others vs State by Superintendent of Police
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: B.V. Nagarathna; R. Mahadevan
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 1169-1172 of 2019 (with Crl.A. No. 17 of 2019)
**Judgment:** 2025-09-17 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-12-29 (1993)
**Place:** Puducherry, Puducherry; city town: Puducherry; police station or unit: Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police officer, Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry Police; Police officer, Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry Police; Police officer, Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Puducherry man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 7 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of police accused Nos. 2 to 4 and affirmed their convictions and 7-year sentences for the custodial death of a Puducherry man @ a Puducherry man, who was brutally beaten at Odiansalai police station on 29 December 1993 and died of multiple blunt-force injuries. The Court held the Madras High Court was justified in affirming the trial court's judgment, while allowing the appeals of accused Nos. 6 to 8. In the companion appeal it upheld the doctor's Section 201 Part II conviction for the false first post-mortem but modified his one-year sentence to a Rs 1,00,000 fine payable to the Puducherry Legal Services Authority. Officer names and ranks are not stated in the available Supreme Court text.

> We find that the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence insofar as the appellants/accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned.

**Sources (2):** [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/43383/43383_2018_5_102_64274_Order_17-Sep-2025.pdf); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/hc-upholds-conviction-of-cops-doctor-in-custodial-death-case-461488.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Puducherry Police Police officer and Others vs State by Superintendent of Police
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 1169-1172 of 2019 (with Crl.A. No. 17 of 2019)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-09-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 1169-1172 of 2019 (with Crl.A. No. 17 of 2019)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/43383/43383_2018_5_102_64274_Order_17-Sep-2025.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/hc-upholds-conviction-of-cops-doctor-in-custodial-death-case-461488.html', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court dismissed appeals of police accused A2-A4, affirming convictions for custodial death; matches conviction_upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0018)

## Ranjit Singh v. The State of Punjab (CW-1959-0001)

**Record:** CW-1959-0001 (compiler id CWC-0505); case SWDERELI-017
**Title:** Ranjit Singh v. The State of Punjab
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: J.L. Kapur; Syed Jaffer Imam
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1957 / AIR 1959 SC 843
**Judgment:** 1959-04-21 (1959, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1953-09-26 (1953)
**Place:** Barnala, Punjab; city town: Shehna; police station or unit: Shehna Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 193
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ranjit Singh (Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Shehna man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.25 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of SHO Ranjit Singh of Shehna under Section 193 IPC for filing a false affidavit denying the illegal detention of a Shehna man, who had been kept in the lock-up from 26.09.1953 to 10.10.1953 without charge or remand and then surreptitiously shifted across stations. The Court held a policeman swearing a false return to a habeas corpus petition is liable for false evidence, rejecting pleas that he was not bound to file it. The modified sentence of three months' simple imprisonment plus Rs.50 fine was sustained. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In our opinion the appellant has been rightly convicted and we would therefore dismiss this appeal.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/837269/); [highcourtchd.gov.in](https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/CRIMINAL%20APPEAL_19_1957.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Ranjit Singh v. The State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1959 SC 843', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1959-04-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1959 SC 843', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/837269/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/CRIMINAL%20APPEAL_19_1957.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment text verified after 429 retry; SHO false-affidavit s.193 conviction upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1959-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1959-0001)

## Roshan Lal and Others v. State of Punjab (CW-1964-0001)

**Record:** CW-1964-0001 (compiler id CWC-0509); case SWILLEGA-002
**Title:** Roshan Lal and Others v. State of Punjab
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: A.K. Sarkar; N. Rajagopala Ayyangar; R.S. Bachawat
**Case number / citation:** Appeal (Crl.) No. 197 of 1964 / AIR 1965 SC 1413
**Judgment:** 1964-12-03 (1964, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1961-12-24 (1961)
**Place:** Faridkot, Punjab (district at time: Bathinda (then Bhatinda)); city town: Jaito; police station or unit: Jaito Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 330/34; IPC 348; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Roshan Lal (Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer); Lachhman Singh (Assistant Sub-Inspector); Kulwant Rai (Foot Constable) (3 in record)
**Victims:** Jaito man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court affirmed the Punjab High Court's reversal of the trial acquittal of three Jaito policemen for the custodial death of opium suspect \[name withheld\]. Arrested on 24 December 1961, a Jaito man was beaten at his house and again overnight in the police station to extort a confession, found dead the next morning, and his body burnt with the bones ground and thrown in a canal. The High Court had convicted SHO Roshan Lal under Sections 330, 330/34 and 348 IPC and all three under Section 201 IPC with consecutive three-year terms. With special leave confined to the Section 201 term, the Supreme Court reduced it to one year and nine months' rigorous imprisonment and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, and the sentences passed on the appellants for the offence u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code are reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and nine months. In other respects, the judgment under appeal is affirmed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735477/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/642981/roshan-lal-and-others-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Roshan Lal and Others v. State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1965 SC 1413', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1964-12-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1965 SC 1413', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735477/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/642981/roshan-lal-and-others-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court affirmed Punjab HC's reversal of acquittal, upholding torture/confinement/evidence-destruction convictions of SHO and 2 policemen for custodial death of a Jaito man; reduced only s.201 term to 1y9m. Subcategory corrected to custodial_death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1964-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1964-0001)

## State of Punjab vs Punjab Police Head Constable (officiating Assistant Sub-Inspector) (CW-1970-0003)

**Record:** CW-1970-0003 (compiler id CWC-1106); case GAP3-127-015
**Title:** State of Punjab vs Punjab Police Head Constable (officiating Assistant Sub-Inspector)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: J. C. Shah; K. S. Hegde; A. N. Grover
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeals Nos. 336 of 1969 and 844 of 1966 / AIR 1971 SC 1676; (1970) 3 SCC 656
**Judgment:** 1970-10-13 (1970, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1954-01-01 (1954)
**Place:** Punjab; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (officiating Assistant Sub-Inspector), Punjab Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 13 October 1970 allowed the State's appeal and dismissed Head Constable's suit, sustaining his 1954 dismissal from the Punjab Police. The Court found that the officiating ASI had been found guilty in a departmental enquiry of fabricating false evidence while investigating a criminal case. It held that the earlier writ judgment dismissing his challenge operated as res judicata, that the plea had not been waived, and that nearly a decade's delay in attacking that judgment could not be condoned. The fabrication charge itself was not re-tried, and no compensation was ordered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A charge was leveled against him of having fabricated false evidence while investigating a criminal case. An enquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police who submitted a report on March 25, 1954 to the District Superintendent finding the respondent guilty of the charge.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/754938/); [pub-138b930c26524cb4bf6e9099898947c0.r2.dev](https://pub-138b930c26524cb4bf6e9099898947c0.r2.dev/judgments/1970/State_Of_Punjab_vs_Bua_Das_Kaushal_on_13_October_1970_1.PDF)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 1
**display title redacted:** State of Punjab vs Punjab Police Head Constable (officiating Assistant Sub-Inspector)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1970-10-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1971 SC 1676; (1970) 3 SCC 656', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/754938/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://pub-138b930c26524cb4bf6e9099898947c0.r2.dev/judgments/1970/State_Of_Punjab_vs_Bua_Das_Kaushal_on_13_October_1970_1.PDF', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC restored dismissal of officiating ASI for fabricating evidence; res judicata from earlier writ barred the suit.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1970-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1970-0003)

## Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (CW-1974-0001)

**Record:** CW-1974-0001 (compiler id CWC-0441); case SWBRIBER-014
**Title:** Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: H. R. Khanna; V. R. Krishna Iyer
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal (Special Leave) / (1974) 4 SCC 305; AIR 1974 SC 1024
**Judgment:** 1974-03-05 (1974, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1968-05-24 (1968)
**Place:** Bathinda, Punjab; city town: Raman; police station or unit: Police Station Raman; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Gian Singh (Assistant Sub-Inspector (then Station House Officer)) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Raman man; Raman woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court dismissed the special-leave appeal of ASI Gian Singh, then Station House Officer of Police Station Raman, upholding his conviction under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court recorded that on 24 May 1968 he recorded a Raman man's complaint but did not arrest the available accused, and through Sarpanch Chand Singh demanded a bribe scaled from Rs. 150 to Rs. 100 for effecting arrest, with ten Rs. 10 notes from the victim's mother \[name withheld\] used as speed money in a trap laid with the DSP. It refused to re-weigh evidence under Article 136, holding police trap witnesses are not discreditable merely for being police. The sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs. 500 fine stands, and the accused was directed to surrender if on bail. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We dismiss the appeal, and if the accused is on bail, he will surrender in consequence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192975814/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1974) 4 SCC 305; AIR 1974 SC 1024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1974-03-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(1974) 4 SCC 305; AIR 1974 SC 1024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192975814/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; SHO's s.5(1)(d) PC Act 1947 conviction and sentence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1974-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1974-0001)

## State of Punjab and Others Rajpura Man (CW-1975-0002)

**Record:** CW-1975-0002 (compiler id CWC-1058); case GAP3-109-005
**Title:** State of Punjab and Others Rajpura Man
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Bal Raj Tuli
**Case number / citation:** AIR 1975 P&H 294
**Judgment:** 1975-02-10 (1975, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1957-07-16 (1957)
**Place:** Patiala, Punjab; city town: Rajpura; police station or unit: Punjab Police (van PNE 4615 escort party); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 22
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (driver), Punjab Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rajpura man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 40,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the Rs 40,000 damages decree against the State and constable-driver \[name withheld\] in favour of lawyer a Rajpura man, a Save Hindi agitation volunteer arrested at Chandigarh station on 15 July 1957, detained at Chandimandar and then conveyed at night in police van PNE 4615. The court held the arrest without warrant, non-production before a Magistrate and conveyance for dispersal were without statutory authority and not a sovereign function. It found the exhausted driver, whose plea for relief was refused, dozed off near Rajpura and struck a tree, crushing the plaintiff's left arm — negligence, not an act of God. The suit against AIG A.\[name withheld\] was dismissed and nothing was awarded for the detention itself; all then in undivided Punjab. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> That the driver was at fault and negligent in the performance of his duties, is abundantly clear on the record.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/639744/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** State of Punjab and Others Rajpura Man
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1975-02-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 40,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 1975 P&H 294', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/639744/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; Rs 40,000 decree against named constable-driver and State upheld on appeal. Compensable wrong is negligent injury in custody, not the detention itself.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1975-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1975-0002)

## Inspector-General of Police, Punjab vs \[name withheld\] (CW-1975-0003)

**Record:** CW-1975-0003 (compiler id CWC-0893); case GAP2-49-009
**Title:** Inspector-General of Police, Punjab vs \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Harbans Singh; Bal Raj Tuli
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal No. 10 of 1972 / ILR (1975) 1 P&H 417
**Judgment:** 1975-07-24 (1975, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1966-11-06 (1966)
**Place:** Kapurthala, Punjab; city town: Phagwara; police station or unit: Punjab Police (Kapurthala); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Excise Act s.61/1/14; Punjab Police Rules 1934 r.16.3(1)(a); Punjab Police Rules 1934 r.16.3(1)(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Punjab Police (Kapurthala) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Permanent Constable was allegedly found carrying 4,500 ml of illicit liquor near village Athali on 6 November 1966 (FIR 383 under the Excise Act, Phagwara), but the Magistrate acquitted him on 17 June 1967 without recording the available official witnesses after the prosecution gave up the public witness as won over. The SP Kapurthala dismissed him on 23 December 1967 after disciplinary proceedings, affirmed on appeal and revision, but a Single Judge allowed his writ on 20 July 1971. The Division Bench held the acquittal was without jurisdiction and the charge had failed on a technical ground, so action lay under Rule 16.3(1)(a), and the wrong citation of clause (b) did not vitiate it. It allowed the State's appeal, set aside the Single Judge, and restored the dismissal.

> We respectfully agree with the learned Single Judge, that the criminal charge against the respondent had failed on a technical ground because the Magistrate refused to record the evidence of the two prosecution witnesses, who were available

**Sources (1):** [highcourtchd.gov.in](https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/LPA_10_1972.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Inspector-General of Police, Punjab vs \[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1975-07-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'ILR (1975) 1 P&H 417', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/LPA_10_1972.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** State's LPA allowed; Single Judge set aside and illicit-liquor dismissal restored — disciplinary_upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1975-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1975-0003)

## Smt. Piaro Bai v. \[name withheld\] and Others (CW-1983-0001)

**Record:** CW-1983-0001 (compiler id CWC-1056); case GAP3-109-003
**Title:** Smt. Piaro Bai v. \[name withheld\] and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: M. M. Punchhi
**Case number / citation:** 1984 Cri LJ 57
**Judgment:** 1983-08-29 (1983, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-08-21 (1983)
**Place:** Ludhiana, Punjab; city town: Sidhwan Bet; police station or unit: Police Station Sidhwan Bet; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Sidhwan Bet; Constable, Police Station Sidhwan Bet; Constable, Police Station Sidhwan Bet; Station House Officer, Police Station Sidhwan Bet (4 in record)
**Victims:** Sidhwan Bet man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

On a habeas corpus petition by widow \[name withheld\] for her son \[name withheld\], the Punjab and Haryana High Court found the detenu confined at Police Station Sidhwan Bet with no roznamcha entry and no registered case, as reported by the court's Warrant Officer on 27 August 1983. The court held there was great divergence between the police officers' versions and that ASI 's explanation was false on its face. It granted the detenu bail in FIR No. 51 of 1982, left him free to seek medical examination and proceed against the culprits over his allegation of severe beating by a constable, and ordered ASI to personally pay Rs 3,000 compensation for the illegal detention. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The detenu having been found at the police station and the explanation of A.S.\[name withheld\] on the face of it being false, entitles the detenu to compensation for illegal detention which is fixed at Rs. 3000/- to be paid by A.S.\[name withheld\].

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1592502/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Smt. Piaro Bai v. \[name withheld\] and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1983-08-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 3,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1984 Cri LJ 57', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1592502/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; illegal detention proved, Rs 3,000 personal compensation ordered. Beating alleged by detenu but compensation awarded for illegal detention.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1983-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1983-0001)

## State of Punjab and Others v. Punjab Police Constable (CW-1986-0002)

**Record:** CW-1986-0002 (compiler id CWC-1054); case GAP3-109-001
**Title:** State of Punjab and Others v. Punjab Police Constable
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: S. S. Sodhi
**Case number / citation:** Regular Second Appeal No. 3336 of 1985 / I.L.R. Punjab and Haryana (1987)2
**Judgment:** 1986-08-20 (1986, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1981-04-01 (1981)
**Place:** Patiala, Punjab; city town: Patiala; police station or unit: Punjab Police, Patiala; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Police Act 1861 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Punjab Police, Patiala (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court sustained the dismissal of Punjab Police constable of Patiala, who had been dismissed on 1 April 1981 by the Additional Superintendent of Police after a departmental enquiry found wilful absence without permission in order to avoid a Refresher Course. The court held the Additional Superintendent of Police has concurrent powers with the Superintendent of Police under s.7 of the Police Act, 1861, so the order was passed by the competent authority. Noting the constable had earned six punishments in ten years of service and was recorded as incorrigible, the court held the punishment called for no interference. It set aside the lower appellate decree that had quashed the dismissal and dismissed the constable's suit; a pure service matter with no citizen victim. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The impugned order of dismissal thus suffers from no infirmity and in this view of the matter, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is hereby set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-\[name withheld\] is hereby dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [highcourtchd.gov.in](https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/Regular%20Second%20Appeal_3336_1985.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** State of Punjab and Others v. Punjab Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1986-08-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'I.L.R. Punjab and Haryana (1987)2', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/Regular%20Second%20Appeal_3336_1985.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified from official HC ILR scan; dismissal for wilful absence sustained. Pure service matter, no citizen victim — retained as disciplinary_upheld per outcome list.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1986-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1986-0002)

## Zira Man v. S.H.O., Police Station Sadar (Zira) (CW-1990-0006)

**Record:** CW-1990-0006 (compiler id CWC-1057); case GAP3-109-004
**Title:** Zira Man v. S.H.O., Police Station Sadar (Zira)
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Ujagar Singh
**Case number / citation:** 1991 ACJ 439
**Judgment:** 1990-08-18 (1990, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-07-03 (1987)
**Place:** Ferozepur, Punjab; city town: Zira; police station or unit: Police Station Sadar, Zira; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Station House Officer), Police Station Sadar, Zira (1 in record)
**Victims:** Zira man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held Sub-Inspector, SHO of Police Station Sadar Zira, guilty of the illegal arrest of a Zira man, taken from his home at 6 a.m. on 3 July 1987 and seen behind bars at the police station before his whereabouts became unknown. Accepting the District and Sessions Judge Ferozepore's enquiry report, the court rejected the respondent's alibi built on daily-diary entries, observing such entries can be manufactured where a person is illegally arrested with an ulterior motive such as elimination by false encounter. Since it was unascertained whether the detenu was alive or dead, the court directed SI to deposit Rs 25,000 as interim compensation and consigned the petition with liberty to revive it and seek further compensation if elimination is established. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Till today, there is no definite evidence that the detenu has been eliminated or otherwise he is no more in the world, but this is certain that his whereabouts are not known to the petitioner or others concerned with him. For all this, respondent must be held guilty.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1955894/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Zira Man v. S.H.O., Police Station Sadar (Zira)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1990-08-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1991 ACJ 439', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1955894/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; illegal arrest proved, officer personally liable for Rs 25,000 interim compensation; detenu's fate unknown (disappearance).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1990-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1990-0006)

## Kharar Man vs \[name withheld\] and Another (CW-1992-0001)

**Record:** CW-1992-0001 (compiler id CWC-0528); case SWENFORC-005
**Title:** Kharar Man vs \[name withheld\] and Another
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: G. S. Chahal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 211 of 1991 / 1992 ACJ 1011
**Judgment:** 1992-02-05 (1992, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-02-01 (1991)
**Place:** Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab (district at time: Rupnagar); city town: Kharar; police station or unit: Police Station Kharar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel (2 in record)
**Victims:** Kharar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court (Justice G. S. Chahal) held on the father's habeas petition that Punjab Police caused the disappearance of a Kharar man after arresting him at Kharar on 6 February 1991 and detaining him without justification or recovery. The court rejected the police abscondance account as false and a lame excuse, accepting the Sessions Judge Ropar's inquiry findings of arrest with ulterior motive. It held the State liable for its officers and ordered Rs 50,000 compensation (Rs 10,000 to each parent, Rs 20,000 to the wife, Rs 10,000 in fixed deposit for the minor child) within two months, with 12% interest on default. No individual officer is named in the order's findings and no prosecution was directed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> After hearing the learned counsel, I accept the arguments of Mr. Navkiran Singh that the police has caused disappearance of a Kharar man The State is liable for the action of its officers for such matters.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/766802/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/116567/gurmukh-singh-appellant-hash-harbans-lal-and-another-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** Kharar Man vs \[name withheld\] and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1992-02-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1992 ACJ 1011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/766802/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/116567/gurmukh-singh-appellant-hash-harbans-lal-and-another-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held police caused custodial disappearance; Rs 50,000 to family.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1992-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1992-0001)

## State of Punjab vs Ferozepur Police Constable (CW-1992-0011)

**Record:** CW-1992-0011 (compiler id CWC-0887); case GAP2-49-002
**Title:** State of Punjab vs Ferozepur Police Constable
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: G. R. Majithia
**Case number / citation:** (1993) 103 PLR 317
**Judgment:** 1992-02-24 (1992, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-03-06 (1983)
**Place:** Firozpur, Punjab (district at time: Ferozepur); city town: Ferozepur; police station or unit: Police Lines, Ferozepur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Punjab Police Rules 1934 r.16.24; Punjab Police Rules 1934 r.16.2(1); Punjab Police Rules 1934 r.14.11-A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Lines, Ferozepur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the State's second appeal and restored the dismissal of constable for wilfully absenting himself from Police Lines, Ferozepur for 37 days in 1983. The court held the proven absence was the gravest act of misconduct under Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, that Rule 14.11-A was only an enabling alternative, and that the authorities had passed speaking orders considering his incorrigible record of thirteen prior absence punishments. The first appellate court's decree was set aside and the trial court's dismissal of his suit restored. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> He wilfully remained absent from duty for thirty seven days. It will be misnomer to say that the conduct of the plaintiff will not constitute the gravest act of misconduct in terms of Rule 16.2 (1) of the Rules

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84948/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/623904/state-punjab-vs-karnail-singh)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** State of Punjab vs Ferozepur Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1992-02-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1993) 103 PLR 317', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84948/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/623904/state-punjab-vs-karnail-singh', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC restored dismissal of constable for wilful 37-day absence; first appellate decree set aside.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1992-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1992-0011)

## Bhagwan Singh and Another v. State of Punjab; Uttam Chand v. State of Punjab (CW-1992-0006)

**Record:** CW-1992-0006 (compiler id CWC-0341); case SUPREM-026; aliases: CWC-0591
**Title:** Bhagwan Singh and Another v. State of Punjab; Uttam Chand v. State of Punjab
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. Jayachandra Reddy; R. C. Patnaik
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 388 and 666 of 1981 / 1992 SCC (3) 249; AIR 1992 SC 1689
**Judgment:** 1992-05-08 (1992, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1978-08-06 (1978)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab; city town: Amritsar; police station or unit: CIA Staff, Amritsar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 201; IPC 325; IPC 323; IPC 365
**Officers (gated display forms):** Bhagwan Singh (Head Constable); Mukhtiar Singh (Head Constable); Uttam Chand (Constable); Joginder Singh (Assistant Sub-Inspector) (4 in record)
**Victims:** Amritsar resident; Amritsar resident; Amritsar resident; Amritsar resident (4 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Amritsar CIA Staff policemen and upheld the High Court's convictions for abducting a narcotics suspect and three witnesses from a hotel on 6 August 1978, torturing them in the CIA Staff Room, murdering the suspect and disposing of his body so it was never recovered. The Court held that the trial court's near-acquittal was rightly reversed on the State's appeal, sustaining murder convictions against the ASI (whose appeal later abated on his death) and two Head Constables, and convictions under sections 201, 365, 325/34 and 323/34 against all four. The Court found the circumstances led to an irresistible inference that the policemen who caused the death also caused the disappearance of the body. Sentences, including life terms and a fine payable to the widow, were to run concurrently. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Torturing a person and using third degree methods are of medieval nature and they are barbaric and contrary to law.

**Sources (3):** [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1992/may/bhagwan-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-7); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac6ee4b014971140edbe); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/654412/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Bhagwan Singh and Another v. State of Punjab; Uttam Chand v. State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1992 SCC (3) 249; AIR 1992 SC 1689', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1992-05-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '1992 SCC (3) 249; AIR 1992 SC 1689', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1992/may/bhagwan-singh-anr-vs-state-of-punjab-7', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac6ee4b014971140edbe', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/654412/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC dismissed appeals; upheld HC murder/evidence-destruction convictions of CIA Staff police; recategorised custodial_death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1992-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1992-0006)

## State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh, Ex-Constable (CW-1992-0007)

**Record:** CW-1992-0007 (compiler id CWC-0656); case SWOTHERM-020
**Title:** State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh, Ex-Constable
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. Ramaswamy; A.M. Ahmadi; M.M. Punchhi
**Case number / citation:** (1992) 4 SCC 54; AIR 1992 SC 2188
**Judgment:** 1992-07-24 (1992, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated (1980)
**Place:** Punjab; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ram Singh (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable Ram Singh, gunman of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, was found heavily drunk on duty roaming at a bus stand wearing his service revolver; a traffic constable took him to the police station, the revolver was deposited in the malkhana, and medical examination confirmed heavy drunkenness. Dismissed on 11 February 1980 after a prescribed-procedure enquiry, he won reinstatement through a civil suit affirmed up to second appeal on the ground that a single drink was not the gravest misconduct. The Supreme Court held a single act of heavy armed drunkenness on duty is the gravest misconduct under Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Manual, allowed the appeal and restored the dismissal.

> Thus it would constitute gravest misconduct warranting dismissal from service. The authorities, therefore, were justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1652148/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac70e4b014971140ee1e)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh, Ex-Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1992-07-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1992) 4 SCC 54; AIR 1992 SC 2188', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1652148/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac70e4b014971140ee1e', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment text verified on Indian Kanoon; armed drunkenness on duty held gravest misconduct, dismissal restored.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1992-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1992-0007)

## Punjab Police Ex-Constable (No. 1119/FZR) vs The State of Punjab and Another (CW-1993-0009)

**Record:** CW-1993-0009 (compiler id CWC-0888); case GAP2-49-003
**Title:** Punjab Police Ex-Constable (No. 1119/FZR) vs The State of Punjab and Another
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: R.K. Nehru; G.R. Majithia
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Petition No. 10190 of 1988 / (1993) 105 PLR 117
**Judgment:** 1993-05-20 (1993, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1986-08-22 (1986)
**Place:** Ferozepur, Punjab; city town: Ferozepur; police station or unit: Ferozepur (SSP Ferozepur establishment), Punjab Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 227; Punjab Police Rules 1934 r.16.2(1)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ex-Constable (No. 1119/FZR), Ferozepur, Punjab Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Constable (No. 1119/FZR) of the Punjab Police was dismissed by the SSP Ferozepur on 18 August 1987 after a departmental enquiry proved his absence without leave for 5 months and 5 days (22 August 1986 to 2 March 1987), and his appeal was rejected by the DIG on 30 December 1987. He challenged both orders under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that he had remained habitually absent despite eight prior punishments, that the past record was rightly considered in awarding dismissal, and that the action suffered from no infirmity. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, leaving the dismissal intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> His absence from duty continuously for 5 months and 5 days was not an isolated Act. There had been repeated acts of remaining absent from duty for which he has been awarded punishment and the past record was taken into account while awarding punishment of dismissal from service. On the facts of the instant case, we do not find that the action of the respondents suffers from any infirmity.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/136911/karnail-singh-ex-constable-appellant-hash-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Punjab Police Ex-Constable (No. 1119/FZR) vs The State of Punjab and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1993-05-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1993) 105 PLR 117', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/136911/karnail-singh-ex-constable-appellant-hash-the-state-of-punjab-and-another-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; dismissal for 5-month-5-day habitual absence upheld — disciplinary_upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1993-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1993-0009)

## Punjab Police Ex-Constable vs State of Punjab and Another (CW-1994-0006)

**Record:** CW-1994-0006 (compiler id CWC-0889); case GAP2-49-004
**Title:** Punjab Police Ex-Constable vs State of Punjab and Another
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: A.L. Bahri
**Case number / citation:** Regular Second Appeal No. 220 of 1989 / (1994) 01 P&H CK 0128
**Judgment:** 1994-01-14 (1994, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-01-19 (1983)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab; city town: Amritsar; police station or unit: Guard party, residence of SSP Amritsar, Punjab Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Punjab Police Rules 1934 r.16.2; Punjab Police Rules 1934 r.16.24(1)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ex-Constable, Guard party, residence of SSP Amritsar, Punjab Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Constable was posted on armed sentry duty (10 p.m. to 2 a.m.) at the residence of the SSP Amritsar on the night of 19-20 January 1983, but slept in the garage, and his service rifle was stolen (FIR No. 50 under Section 380 IPC). After a regular enquiry he was dismissed from service, affirmed on departmental appeal and revision, and his civil suit was dismissed by both lower courts. In regular second appeal he argued only that dismissal was disproportionate since the rifle was later recovered at his instance. The High Court held that abandoning armed sentry duty and allowing the rifle to be stolen was the gravest misconduct rendering him completely unfit for the police, and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

> Such an act on his part is gravest in nature which would completely make him unfit for police department

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/160470/dharam-singh-ex-constable-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-another-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Punjab Police Ex-Constable vs State of Punjab and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1994-01-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1994) 01 P&H CK 0128', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/160470/dharam-singh-ex-constable-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-another-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Second appeal dismissed; dismissal for sleeping on armed sentry duty upheld — disciplinary_upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1994-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1994-0006)

## Ladowal Man vs State of Punjab and Others (CW-1994-0004)

**Record:** CW-1994-0004 (compiler id CWC-0711); case GAP8-006
**Title:** Ladowal Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: S. P. Kurdukar; H. S. Bedi
**Case number / citation:** 1996 ACJ 193; (1995) 109 PLR 117
**Judgment:** 1994-05-03 (1994, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-08-17 (1991)
**Place:** Ludhiana, Punjab; city town: Ladowal; police station or unit: Police Chowki Ladowal; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Chowki Ladowal, Ludhiana; Head Constable (Munshi), Police Chowki Ladowal, Ludhiana; Constable, Police Chowki Ladowal, Ludhiana; Punjab Home Guard, Police Chowki Ladowal, Ludhiana; Head Constable, Police Chowki Ladowal, Ludhiana; Constable, Police Chowki Ladowal, Ludhiana; Sub-Inspector, Police Chowki Ladowal, Ludhiana (7 in record)
**Victims:** Ladowal man, age 42 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Ladowal man, an agricultural labourer and milk vendor, was picked up on 16 August 1991 by six personnel of Police Chowki Ladowal and found dead in custody on the morning of 17 August 1991. The State admitted the death in custody but offered shifting explanations of snake-bite, vasovagal shock and chronic asthma, and produced an affidavit from the widow stating she wanted no action. The Division Bench rejected the explanations, holding the custodian must account for a death in custody and that, the explanation being unacceptable, the inference must follow that it was a custodial death, not a natural death. The Court accepted the writ and awarded Rs.1,50,000 in full and final satisfaction, Rs.50,000 withdrawable by the widow and the balance in FDRs for the three minor children. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We accordingly conclude that the death of a Ladowal man is a custodial death of which the respondents could not give satisfactory explanation.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1814190/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Ladowal Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1994-05-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1996 ACJ 193; (1995) 109 PLR 117', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1814190/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB held unexplained death in custody is custodial death; Rs.1,50,000 compensation awarded.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1994-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1994-0004)

## Bhawanigarh Man vs State of Punjab (CW-1994-0001)

**Record:** CW-1994-0001 (compiler id CWC-0306); case PUNJAB-010; aliases: CWC-0712
**Title:** Bhawanigarh Man vs State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: H.S. Bedi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 351 of 1993 / (1994) 08 P&H CK 0051
**Judgment:** 1994-08-17 (1994, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-04-24 (1993)
**Place:** Sangrur, Punjab; city town: Bhawanigarh; police station or unit: Police Station Bhawanigarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 149; Arms Act 27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Bhawanigarh; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Bhawanigarh; Head Constable, Police Station Bhawanigarh; Constable, Police Station Bhawanigarh; Constable, Police Station Bhawanigarh; Special Police Officer, Police Station Bhawanigarh; Special Police Officer, Police Station Bhawanigarh; Special Police Officer, Police Station Bhawanigarh; Special Police Officer, Police Station Bhawanigarh; Special Police Officer, Police Station Bhawanigarh; Special Police Officer, Police Station Bhawanigarh (11 in record)
**Victims:** Bhawanigarh man, age 25 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

\[name withheld\] @ Dalli, aged 25, was handed to Bhawanigarh police on 22 April 1993 and police claimed he escaped during a half-hour exchange of fire on 24 April 1993; the Sessions Judge, Patiala, found instead that 11 police personnel conspired to liquidate him and murdered him in village Majhi. The High Court substantially accepted the report, directing registration of a murder case under Sections 302/149 IPC with Section 27 Arms Act, transfer of the officers out of Bhawanigarh, and CBI investigation, leaving action against a Haryana DSP for earlier illegal custody open pending the CBI report. Equating the death with victims of terrorist violence under Punjab policy as on 23 April 1993, the Court held the mother entitled to monetary compensation via the District Magistrate Sangrur within one month plus benefits including priority employment within three months, as an interim measure. No fixed rupee sum was stated in the judgment. Two different men of the same name were held liable in this judgment — Assistant Sub-Inspector and Special Police Officer — and the name further collides with convicted officers of the same name in other records of this dataset; rank and unit disambiguate them. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the positive finding of the Sessions Judge, is that the police officers had murdered \[name withheld\] alias Dalli in the area of village Majhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Bhawanigarh

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/146863/hardeep-kaur-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-respondent/); [amnesty.org](https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa200281995en.pdf); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49479607dba348f00c242)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Bhawanigarh Man vs State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1994-08-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered compensation in an amount stated in the judgment.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1994) 08 P&H CK 0051', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/146863/hardeep-kaur-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa200281995en.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49479607dba348f00c242', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC accepted finding that 11 Bhawanigarh personnel conspired to murder detainee, ordering murder case, CBI probe, policy-based compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1994-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1994-0001)

## Majitha Man vs State of Punjab and Others (CW-1995-0002)

**Record:** CW-1995-0002 (compiler id CWC-0307); case SWENFORC-003
**Title:** Majitha Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: A.M. Ahmadi; A.S. Anand; S.P. Bharucha
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 221 of 1994 / AIR 1995 SC 1949
**Judgment:** 1995-05-10 (1995, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-10-29 (1991)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab; city town: Majitha; police station or unit: Punjab Police (Majitha / Kalanaur / Dera Baba Nanak); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punjab Police; Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala Police; Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar (3 in record)
**Victims:** Majitha man; Majitha man; Majitha man; Majitha man; Majitha man; Majitha man; Majitha man (7 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10.5 lakh (Rs 10,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court of India held the State of Punjab liable for the abduction, unlawful detention, and extrajudicial liquidation of seven members of a single family from village Bagga, Majitha. Acting upon a report submitted by the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Court found that DSP led a police party to forcibly abduct the seven victims in October 1991 to avenge his brother's kidnapping by militants, subsequently holding them at Kalanaur and Dera Baba Nanak police stations before liquidating them. The Court condemned senior supervisory officers including SSP Batala and DIG Border Range for sitting on complaints for months. The Supreme Court directed the State of Punjab to pay compensation of Rs 1.50 lakh to the legal representatives of each of the seven victims (totalling Rs 10.5 lakh), expeditiously prosecute the chargesheeted police officers, and initiate disciplinary inquiries against negligent senior officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A Deputy Superintendent of the Punjab Police and a police party abducted the said 7 persons. The Deputy Superintendent of Police misused the machinery of the police to wreak private vengeance upon the said 7 persons.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/206146/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/357489/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Majitha Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1995-05-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,050,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 1995 SC 1949', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/206146/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/357489/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court found DSP-led police party abducted and killed 7 family members, awarded Rs 1.50 lakh compensation per victim (Rs 10,50,000 total) plus prosecution and disciplinary action.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1995-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1995-0002)

## Hariana Man vs State of Punjab (CW-1995-0003)

**Record:** CW-1995-0003 (compiler id CWC-0308); case PUNJAB-012
**Title:** Hariana Man vs State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: V.S. Aggarwal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5 of 1995 In Criminal Writ Petition No. 125 of 1993 / (1995) 3 RCR (Criminal) 110
**Judgment:** 1995-05-17 (1995, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-03-06 (1993)
**Place:** Hoshiarpur, Punjab; city town: Hariana; police station or unit: Hariana Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 224; CrPC 482
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Hariana Police Station; Constable, Hariana Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Hariana man, age 30 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana awarded Rs 1,00,000 compensation to the family of a Hariana man, who was eliminated in police custody. A Hariana man had been arrested on 30 December 1992 by Inspector of PS Hariana, and police subsequently claimed he escaped on 6 March 1993 while being led by Constable to recover hidden weapons. An inquiry conducted by the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, rejected the police escape story and concluded that a Hariana man was in all probability eliminated by the police party. The High Court accepted the inquiry report and directed the State to pay compensation for the benefit of the deceased's four children, wife, and elderly parents. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On 11.8.1994, a Single Bench of this Court directed that a case be registered against \[name withheld\], SHO incharge of the police station and the police party headed by him. It was further directed that investigation should be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police, Crimes, or Inspector General of Police, Internal Vigilance.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/142840/hazura-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-respondent/); [journals.law.harvard.edu](https://journals.law.harvard.edu/hrj/wp-content/uploads/sites/83/2020/06/15HHRJ269-Kaur.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Hariana Man vs State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1995-05-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1995) 3 RCR (Criminal) 110', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/142840/hazura-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://journals.law.harvard.edu/hrj/wp-content/uploads/sites/83/2020/06/15HHRJ269-Kaur.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Punjab & Haryana HC accepted inquiry finding that a Hariana man was eliminated by police after staged escape, awarding Rs 1,00,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1995-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1995-0003)

## Ludhiana Man v. State of Punjab (CW-1995-0007)

**Record:** CW-1995-0007 (compiler id CWC-0532); case SWENFORC-009
**Title:** Ludhiana Man v. State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: V. K. Jhanji
**Case number / citation:** Crl. Misc. No. 3052-M of 1994 and connected / 1996 CriLJ 1037
**Judgment:** 1995-09-14 (1995, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-03-15 (1994)
**Place:** Ludhiana, Punjab; city town: Ludhiana; police station or unit: PS Focal Point / PS Kotwali, Ludhiana; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, Punjab Police; Superintendent of Police, Punjab Police; Station House Officer, PS Kotwali, Ludhiana Police; Station House Officer, PS Focal Point, Ludhiana Police (4 in record)
**Victims:** Ludhiana man; Ludhiana man; Ludhiana man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 4 lakh (Rs 4,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court acted on the CBI report establishing on circumstantial evidence that SSP Ludhiana Sumedh Saini, an SP and two SHOs caused the disappearance of businessman \[name withheld\], his brother-in-law and his driver after they left for Ludhiana on 15 March 1994 following a High Court appearance. The Court directed the CBI challan to be filed before the CJM Ambala for fair trial and ordered Rs 2 lakh interim ex gratia each to the wives and children of a Ludhiana man and a Ludhiana man Suo motu contempt against two officers was discharged with observations kept off the criminal trial's merits. The Supreme Court in 2000 recast only the sanction direction as a duty to consider, leaving interim relief undisturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the light of the circumstantial evidence on record, it is established that Shri \[name withheld\], the then SSP Ludhiana, Shri \[name withheld\], SP, \[name withheld\] SHO PS Kotwali and \[name withheld\], SHO, P. S. Focal Point are responsible for causing the disappearance of a Ludhiana man, a Ludhiana man and a Ludhiana man

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1312117/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad8de4b0149711411aa9); [data.ensaaf.org](https://data.ensaaf.org/static/files/saini/pdf/Vinod_Kumar_S_O_Rattan_Singh_vs_State_Of_Punjab_on_14_September,_1995.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17 (CBI report para 91)
**display title redacted:** Ludhiana Man v. State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1995-09-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 400,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1996 CriLJ 1037', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1312117/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad8de4b0149711411aa9', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://data.ensaaf.org/static/files/saini/pdf/Vinod_Kumar_S_O_Rattan_Singh_vs_State_Of_Punjab_on_14_September,_1995.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC relied on CBI report fixing SSP/SP/SHOs; Rs 2L ex gratia per family; SC (2000) only recast sanction direction.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1995-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1995-0007)

## Punjab Police Constable vs State of Punjab and Another (CW-1996-0014)

**Record:** CW-1996-0014 (compiler id CWC-1093); case GAP3-127-001
**Title:** Punjab Police Constable vs State of Punjab and Another
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. Ramaswamy; G. B. Pattanaik
**Case number / citation:** Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 903 of 1996 / (1996) 7 SCC 748; AIR 1996 SC 3159
**Judgment:** 1996-01-29 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Punjab; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302 read with IPC 34; IPC 323; IPC 324; Probation of Offenders Act 1958 s.12; Punjab Police Rules Rule 16.2(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Punjab Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 29 January 1996 dismissed constable 's plea for reinstatement into the Punjab Police after his criminal conviction. The Court recorded that he was charged with others under Sections 302/34, 323 and 324 IPC for an assault causing one death and one injury; the High Court set aside the murder and hurt convictions but maintained the Section 323 IPC conviction and released him on probation. The Court held that release on probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act does not wipe out the conviction, and that as a member of a disciplined force he was expected to prevent crime rather than participate in it. It found the authorities justified in refusing reinstatement under Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, converting the penalty of dismissal into removal from service. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In that view, the petitioner being a member of the disciplined police force, the authorities were justified in rejecting his reinstatement. However, we convert the penalty of dismissal into one of removal from service.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/683334/karam-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1447604/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Punjab Police Constable vs State of Punjab and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-01-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1996) 7 SCC 748; AIR 1996 SC 3159', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/683334/karam-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1447604/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC upheld refusal to reinstate convicted constable; dismissal converted to removal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1996-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0014)

## Ropar Man vs State of Punjab and others (CW-1996-0003)

**Record:** CW-1996-0003 (compiler id CWC-0774); case NORTH-005; aliases: CWC-0304
**Title:** Ropar Man vs State of Punjab and others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Kuldip Singh; Faizan Uddin
**Case number / citation:** 1996 SCC (4) 742; 1996 SCALE (4) 416
**Judgment:** 1996-05-10 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-01-25 (1993)
**Place:** Rupnagar, Punjab (district at time: Ropar); city town: Ropar; police station or unit: Police Station City Ropar / Police Station Sadar Ropar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 364; IPC 302; IPC 201; IPC 193; IPC 194; IPC 211; IPC 218
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Ropar Police, Punjab Police; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Ropar Police, Punjab Police; Inspector, Ropar Police, Punjab Police; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punjab Police; Deputy Inspector General, Punjab Police (5 in record)
**Victims:** Ropar man; Ropar woman; Ropar youngster, age 2; Ropar man (4 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 12 lakh (Rs 12,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Advocate a man, his wife and two-year-old child vanished after driving to PS City Ropar on 25 January 1993 and were never found; Ropar police instead built the murder case against a man, who agreed under police pressure to own the killings to save his life. The CBI report commissioned by the Supreme Court proved beyond reasonable doubt that a man's confession was falsely recorded and the Bhakra Canal car recovery falsely shown, naming an SI, ASI, Inspector and DSP prima facie responsible for false implication under Sections 194, 211 and 218 IPC and indicting a DIG for lack of supervision. The Supreme Court ordered a man's immediate release with Rs. 2,00,000 compensation (recoverable from the officers personally on conviction) and Rs. 10,00,000 to the advocate's parents. It transferred the trial to Chandigarh, ordered sanction decisions within a month, suspension of the officers during trial, and left the abduction and murder charge to the trial court. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The abduction and murder of \[a man\] and his family was the most heinous crime against humanity.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1512669/); [lawsathi.in](https://lawsathi.in/judgements/pdf/sc/1996/en/S_1996_2_787_795_EN.pdf); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/680504/punjab-and-haryana-high-court-bar-association-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-responde/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad08e4b014971141052b)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Ropar Man vs State of Punjab and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-05-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1996 SCC (4) 742; 1996 SCALE (4) 416', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1512669/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawsathi.in/judgements/pdf/sc/1996/en/S_1996_2_787_795_EN.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/680504/punjab-and-haryana-high-court-bar-association-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-responde/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad08e4b014971141052b', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC held Ropar police falsely implicated Harpreet Singh (false confession, false recovery), ordering release, Rs 2 lakh to him and Rs 10 lakh to advocate's parents.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': None}; {'age': 2, 'gender': None, 'descriptor': None}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1996-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0003)

## Mohali Man vs State of Punjab (CW-1996-0006)

**Record:** CW-1996-0006 (compiler id CWC-0310); case PUNJAB-014; aliases: CWC-1432
**Title:** Mohali Man vs State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: V.K. Jhanji
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 3342 of 1989 / (1996) 3 RCR (Criminal) 752
**Judgment:** 1996-07-05 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-09-01 (1989)
**Place:** Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab (district at time: Rupnagar); city town: Mohali; police station or unit: CIA Staff Patiala; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 197
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, CIA Staff Patiala; Assistant Sub-Inspector, CIA Staff Patiala (2 in record)
**Victims:** Mohali man; Mohali man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that CIA Staff Patiala police officers abducted and eliminated a Mohali man following a raid on a house in SAS Nagar (Mohali) in September 1989, in which his companion a Mohali man was shot dead. The Court accepted the report of the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, rejecting the police's false claim that a Mohali man had escaped unarmed from an armed police cordon. The High Court directed the CBI to register a criminal case, investigate, and file a chargesheet against Inspector \[name withheld\] and ASI, and awarded Rs 3,00,000 compensation to the deceased's family, recoverable from the accused upon conviction. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the evidence both direct and circumstantial, as discussed above, inevitably points to the conclusion that a Mohali man was effectively captured from House No. 1752 and whisked away in the jeep parked at some distance from the aforesaid house to some undisclosed destination and his nonproduction before the Hon'ble High Court is indicative of his elimination in flagrant violation of law of the land

**Sources (4):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/144857/tarlochan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab/); [hrw.org](https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/india1007/india1007.htm); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49491607dba348f00d611); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/153425/karnail-singh-and-another-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent-1/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Mohali Man vs State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-07-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1996) 3 RCR (Criminal) 752', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/144857/tarlochan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/india1007/india1007.htm', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49491607dba348f00d611', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/153425/karnail-singh-and-another-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent-1/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Punjab & Haryana HC accepted inquiry finding that CIA Patiala police abducted and eliminated a Mohali man, ordered CBI prosecution and awarded Rs 3,00,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1996-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0006)

## Amritsar Man v. State of Punjab and Ors. (CW-1996-0007)

**Record:** CW-1996-0007 (compiler id CWC-0534); case SWENFORC-013
**Title:** Amritsar Man v. State of Punjab and Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 497 of 1996
**Judgment:** 1996-08-07 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-09-06 (1995)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab; police station or unit: Tarn Taran Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 365
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran Police; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punjab Police; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punjab Police (7 in record)
**Victims:** Amritsar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court, on Paramjit Kaur's habeas petition for her husband \[name withheld\] abducted on 6 September 1995, ordered a CBI inquiry and then prosecution of the officials on the CBI report, directing Punjab to pay Rs 10 lakh interim compensation recoverable from the officers on conviction. The Court called kidnapping that leaves a family in the dark about whether the victim is alive or dead the worst crime against humanity. The unreported Record of Proceedings is corroborated by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in \[name withheld\] (2001), which records the date and amount. The officials were later convicted at trial with convictions upheld to the Supreme Court. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Kidnapping of a person whose family is totally in dark about his whereabouts - even about the fact whether he is alive or dead - is the worst crime against humanity.

**Sources (4):** [ia600701.us.archive.org](https://ia600701.us.archive.org/17/items/JaswantSinghKhalra-AMartyrForHumanRights/JaswantSinghKhalra-AMartyrForHumanRights.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80798392/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/342168/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/153425/karnail-singh-and-another-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent-1/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Amritsar Man v. State of Punjab and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-08-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 497 of 1996', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://ia600701.us.archive.org/17/items/JaswantSinghKhalra-AMartyrForHumanRights/JaswantSinghKhalra-AMartyrForHumanRights.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80798392/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/342168/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/153425/karnail-singh-and-another-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent-1/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC ordered prosecution on CBI report plus Rs 10L interim compensation; order corroborated by \[name withheld\] (2001).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1996-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0007)

## Jalandhar Man vs State of Punjab (CW-1996-0012)

**Record:** CW-1996-0012 (compiler id CWC-0778); case SWENFORC-016; aliases: CWC-0301
**Title:** Jalandhar Man vs State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Iqbal Singh
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 524 of 1994 (O&M) / (1997) 2 RCR(Criminal) 809
**Judgment:** 1996-12-19 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-08-28 (1992)
**Place:** Jalandhar, Punjab; city town: Jalandhar; police station or unit: CIA Staff Jalandhar / Nakodar Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, CIA Staff Jalandhar, CIA Staff, Jalandhar; Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, Jalandhar Police; Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, Jalandhar Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Jalandhar man; Jalandhar man; Jalandhar man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 9 lakh (Rs 9,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Punjab Police constables and a Jalandhar man were arrested on 4 September 1992 by SI of CIA Staff Jalandhar, while constable was picked up from Civil Hospital Sangrur on 28 August 1992; police claimed the first two escaped during a terrorist encounter and the third died in a genuine encounter with Nakodar police. The District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, found no encounter took place, the escape story was falsely devised, the two constables' lives were in all probability snuffed out by police, and a Jalandhar man's encounter version was concocted. The High Court accepted the well-reasoned report, rejected the SSP's attack on it, and directed the CBI to register a case and complete investigation within nine months. Applying strict liability under Nilabati Behera, the Court awarded Rs. 3,00,000 each to the three petitioners (fathers/mother of the deceased constables). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The learned District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, in his report dated 24.5.1995 held that neither any encounter had taken place nor a Jalandhar man and a Jalandhar man had escaped from police custody. The story by the police has been devised falsely.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/147047/joga-singh-vs-state-of-punjab/); [highcourtchd.gov.in](https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/CRWP_769_1995.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Jalandhar Man vs State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-12-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 900,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1997) 2 RCR(Criminal) 809', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/147047/joga-singh-vs-state-of-punjab/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/CRWP_769_1995.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC accepted DJ report that two constables' lives were snuffed out by police and third died in concocted encounter, awarding Rs 3 lakh to each of three families plus CBI probe.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1996-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0012)

## Banur Man vs State of Punjab (CW-2013-0012)

**Record:** CW-2013-0012 (compiler id CWC-0713); case PUNJAB-013
**Title:** Banur Man vs State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: R.L. Anand
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22334-M of 1996 / (1997) 4 RCR (Criminal) 176
**Judgment:** 1997-08-01 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-09-01 (1991)
**Place:** Patiala, Punjab; city town: Banur; police station or unit: Banur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 482
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Banur Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Banur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held the police of Police Station Banur responsible for the custodial death of a Banur man on 1 September 1991. The police claimed the detainee committed suicide by consuming cyanide during an escorted weapon recovery operation, but the Court determined that cyanide could not have been accessible to a person in continuous police custody without gross omission and negligence by police functionaries. While declining a CBI inquiry six years after the incident, the High Court held that constitutional protections extend even to suspects of shady character and directed payment of Rs 50,000 compensation to the deceased's mother. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As I have fixed the responsibility on the functionaries of the State, I order the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation to the mother of the deceased.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/147105/sadhu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Banur Man vs State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-08-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1997) 4 RCR (Criminal) 176', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/147105/sadhu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Punjab & Haryana HC held Banur police responsible for custodial death of a Banur man by cyanide ingestion, awarding Rs 50,000 compensation to his mother.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0012)

## Qadian Man vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala and Another (CW-1999-0006)

**Record:** CW-1999-0006 (compiler id CWC-0318); case PUNJAB-022
**Title:** Qadian Man vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala and Another
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: R.L. Anand
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 134 of 1996 / (1999) 07 P&H CK 0045
**Judgment:** 1999-07-14 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-12-28 (1995)
**Place:** Gurdaspur, Punjab; city town: Qadian; police station or unit: Police Station Qadian; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Gurmeet Singh (Assistant Sub-Inspector); Station House Officer, Police Station Qadian (2 in record)
**Victims:** Qadian man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held a Qadian man, picked up without valid reason by Qadian police, was tortured with third-degree methods in ASI Gurmeet Singh's custody, fracturing both hip joints and permanently disabling him. The Court set aside the first Sessions enquiry, endorsed the supplementary report drawing an adverse inference against the ASI, and found the clean-chit medical board report of 30 December 1995 was procured by police pressure on doctors. It awarded Rs 1.5 lakh interim compensation against the State with recovery rights against defaulting officers. Torture by SHO was held not proved.

> it can be reasonably established that a Qadian man was tortured and the damage was caused to him when he remained in custody of ASI Gurmeet Singh.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/130447/shiv-dev-singh-vs-senior-superintendent-of-police-batala/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Qadian Man vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1999-07-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1999) 07 P&H CK 0045', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/130447/shiv-dev-singh-vs-senior-superintendent-of-police-batala/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC held torture in ASI's custody established and awarded Rs 1.5 lakh interim compensation; matches adverse_finding_compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1999-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0006)

## Malerkotla Man v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CW-1999-0007)

**Record:** CW-1999-0007 (compiler id CWC-0568); case SWFAKEEN-034
**Title:** Malerkotla Man v. State of Punjab & Ors.
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: T.H.B. Chalapathi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 220 of 1997 / 2000(3) RCR (Crl) 403
**Judgment:** 1999-09-28 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-03-13 (1993)
**Place:** Malerkotla, Punjab (district at time: Sangrur); city town: Malerkotla; police station or unit: Punjab Police (Sangrur/Patiala); PS Malerkotla (FIR No. 21 of 1993); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Punjab Police; Inspector, Punjab Police (headed encounter party) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Malerkotla man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Replace limits sentence with the recorded police case: Inspector denied involvement and disputed the inquiry report (para 3); SSP Sangrur stated a Malerkotla man escaped custody, joined terrorists and was killed in the encounter with Inspector's party, FIR 21/1993 (para 4). Delete the Malerkotla-district sentence (compiler-added, unattributed). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On the facts and circumstances of the case, I have no manner of doubt that the son of the petitioner \[name withheld\] alias a Malerkotla man was eliminated by the Govt. officials.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/152581/gurbachan-kaur-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-respondent-1/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Malerkotla Man v. State of Punjab & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1999-09-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2000(3) RCR (Crl) 403', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/152581/gurbachan-kaur-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-respondent-1/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Law student on parole eliminated in fake encounter near Malerkotla; Rs 1.5L to family.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1999-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0007)

## Nawanshahr Man vs State of Punjab (CW-2001-0003)

**Record:** CW-2001-0003 (compiler id CWC-0302); case SWENFORC-015
**Title:** Nawanshahr Man vs State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: M.L. Singhal
**Case number / citation:** 2001(3) RCR(Crl.) 569
**Judgment:** 2001-05-10 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-01-11 (1993)
**Place:** Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab (district at time: Nawanshahr); city town: Nawanshahr; police station or unit: Police Station Nawanshahr; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Police Station Nawanshahr; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nawanshahr (4 in record)
**Victims:** Nawanshahr man, age 35 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. A 35-year-old bank branch manager was handed over by his father \[name withheld\] to Inspector, SHO, on 29 December 1992 and was never released; police claimed he escaped from handcuffs during a terrorist ambush on 11 January 1993 while being taken for arms recovery. Two successive Sessions Judge enquiries rejected the ambush and escape story as not believable and found prima facie that the branch manager was eliminated in a stage-managed encounter, holding Inspector liable. The High Court directed the SHO to register a murder case, with investigation by an officer not below SP rank from outside Jalandhar range within four months. Holding the State vicariously liable for murder by its functionaries, the Court awarded Rs. 3,00,000 shared equally by widow \[name withheld\] and three children. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Encounter as alleged and escape of \[name withheld\] was just stage managed to eliminate \[name withheld\].

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151445/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=611002996000&title=pritam-singh-vs-state-of-punjab)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Nawanshahr Man vs State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-05-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2001(3) RCR(Crl.) 569', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151445/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=611002996000&title=pritam-singh-vs-state-of-punjab', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC held the branch manager eliminated in stage-managed encounter fixing liability on Inspector, ordering murder-case registration and Rs 3 lakh to family.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2001-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0003)

## Gurdaspur Man and Another v. State of Punjab and Others (CW-2001-0007)

**Record:** CW-2001-0007 (compiler id CWC-0535); case SWENFORC-014; aliases: CWC-0620
**Title:** Gurdaspur Man and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: V. M. Jain
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14150-M of 1994 (O&M) / (2005) 1 RCR (Criminal) 581
**Judgment:** 2001-09-11 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-07-17 (1993)
**Place:** Gurdaspur, Punjab; police station or unit: Punjab Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 364; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Punjab Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Gurdaspur man, age 45 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Hedge actor/date: counsel submitted \[name withheld\] was abducted 17.7.1993 by ASI and others (para 5); sessions inquiry did not establish allegations (para 3); court compensated on 'allegedly kidnapped' basis after CBI challan (para 9). Add State contention that no compensation case made as nothing shows murder (para 5); drop false limits sentence. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> However, taking into consideration that \[name withheld\] was allegedly kidnapped by ASI \[name withheld\] and other police officials, and his whereabouts were not known since July, 1993, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be fully met in case Punjab Government through Chief Secretary is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lacs as compensation to the legal heirs of said \[name withheld\], deceased.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/153425/karnail-singh-and-another-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent-1/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80798392/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/540493/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Gurdaspur Man and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-09-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2005) 1 RCR (Criminal) 581', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/153425/karnail-singh-and-another-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent-1/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80798392/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/540493/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Full judgment read; CBI found s.364/120B against ASI; Rs 3L apportioned to widow, father and sons.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2001-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0007)

## Shahura Man v. State of Punjab and Others (CW-2001-0018)

**Record:** CW-2001-0018 (compiler id CWC-1059); case GAP3-110-001
**Title:** Shahura Man v. State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: M.L. Singhal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1204 of 1997 / (2002) CriLJ 1082; (2001) 4 RCR (Criminal) 761
**Judgment:** 2001-09-26 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-02-13 (1988)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab; city town: Shahura; police station or unit: PS Lopoke; PS Gharinda; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 307; IPC 148; IPC 149; IPC 224; Arms Act s.25; TADA Act s.3; TADA Act s.4; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, PS Lopoke, Amritsar; SHO, PS Gharinda, Amritsar; Head Constable, PS Lopoke escort party; Head Constable, PS Lopoke escort party; Constable, PS Lopoke escort party; Constable, PS Lopoke escort party (6 in record)
**Victims:** Shahura man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Add the recorded police case: arrest in FIR 21/1988, disclosure statement, escape during arms-recovery escort, FIR 23/1988 s.224, proclaimed offender, exoneration in DC and SP inquiries (paras 2, 4, 7). Drop the false 'police version is not recorded' sentence.

> Preponderance of probability is in favour of the view that if he had escaped from police custody on 13.2.88, he would have returned to his family after the State terrorism had ceased.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/176495/balbir-kaur-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent-2/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=611002342000&title=balbir-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/637734/balbir-kaur-vs-state-punjab-ors)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Shahura Man v. State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-09-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2002) CriLJ 1082; (2001) 4 RCR (Criminal) 761', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/176495/balbir-kaur-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent-2/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=611002342000&title=balbir-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/637734/balbir-kaur-vs-state-punjab-ors', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified; custodial-death inference with Rs 1.5 lakh compensation against State.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2001-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0018)

## Batala Man and another vs State of Punjab and others (CW-2002-0009)

**Record:** CW-2002-0009 (compiler id CWC-0303); case PUNJAB-007; aliases: CWC-1433
**Title:** Batala Man and another vs State of Punjab and others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: K.S. Garewal
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Petition No. 1294 of 1996 / (2002) 11 P&H CK 0058
**Judgment:** 2002-11-12 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-01-01 (1996)
**Place:** Gurdaspur, Punjab; city town: Batala; police station or unit: Police Station Sadar Batala; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 364; IPC 342; Article 21; Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Station Sadar Batala; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Sadar Batala; Constable, Police Station Sadar Batala (3 in record)
**Victims:** Batala man; Batala man; Batala man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 9 lakh (Rs 9,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Reword enquiry finding to: Addl. Sessions Judge did not establish abduction by the named ASI/constable but found it appeared from the evidence they had been abducted by the police (para 1). No 'eliminated' finding was recorded by the enquiry. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Compensation for death in police custody is an independent remedy which the heirs of the deceased are entitled to irrespective of the outcome of the criminal trial.

**Sources (4):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/128171/varinder-kaur-and-another-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent/); [highcourtchd.gov.in](https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/CRWP_769_1995.pdf); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=612002172000&Title=VARINDER-KAUR-Vs.-STATE-OF-PUNJAB); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137061167/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Batala Man and another vs State of Punjab and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-11-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 900,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2002) 11 P&H CK 0058', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/128171/varinder-kaur-and-another-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/CRWP_769_1995.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=612002172000&Title=VARINDER-KAUR-Vs.-STATE-OF-PUNJAB', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137061167/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC accepted ASJ report that three men were abducted by Batala police and eliminated, awarding Rs 3 lakh each to three families.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0009)

## Jalandhar Man vs State of Punjab and Others (CW-2004-0002)

**Record:** CW-2004-0002 (compiler id CWC-0313); case PUNJAB-017
**Title:** Jalandhar Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Binod Kumar Roy; Surya Kant
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Petition No. 550 of 2004 / (2004) 05 P&H CK 0097
**Judgment:** 2004-05-29 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-05-04 (2001)
**Place:** Jalandhar, Punjab; city town: Jalandhar; police station or unit: Punjab Police, Jalandhar (escort/court duty); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Punjab Police, Jalandhar; Head Constable, Punjab Police, Jalandhar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Jalandhar man, age 28 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Add the recorded State side: respondents admitted the death and FIR 5/2003 s.304-A against nine jail + two police officials (para 3); State counsel contended it was an emergency, no negligence, no liability (para 6). Drop the false 'police version is not recorded' sentence.

> at least on account of gross negligence committed by the officials of the Jail and Police Departments of the State of Punjab, if not killed by one of them by administering poison, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be sufficiently met by awarding a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2.50 lacs.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/157826/priti-thapar-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Jalandhar Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2004-05-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 250,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2004) 05 P&H CK 0097', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/157826/priti-thapar-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC DB held death due to gross negligence of jail and police officials, awarded Rs 2.5 lakh; matches adverse_finding_compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2004-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0002)

## Maluka Man vs State of Punjab and others (CW-2005-0003)

**Record:** CW-2005-0003 (compiler id CWC-0529); case PUNJAB-004; aliases: CWC-1423; CWC-1474
**Title:** Maluka Man vs State of Punjab and others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Surya Kant
**Case number / citation:** Crl. W.P. No. 769 of 1995 / ILR 2005(1) P&H 462
**Judgment:** 2005-02-09 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-04-03 (1992)
**Place:** Bathinda, Punjab; city town: Maluka; police station or unit: Police Post Bhagta Bhalka; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 364; IPC 120-B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Post Bhagta Bhaika, Punjab Police; Head Constable, Police Post Bhagta Bhaika, Punjab Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Maluka man, age 40 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. A Maluka man, aged about 40, was forcibly picked up from his house in village Maluka, Bathinda, on 3 April 1992 by ASI, Head Constable and a CRPF constable, and was never seen again. A District and Sessions Judge enquiry found the two Punjab Police officials abducted him and covered it up, leading the High Court to order a CBI investigation; the surviving officer was convicted under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in February 2003. The High Court held the forcible abduction and illegal detention conclusively proved and the State strictly liable for abusing the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty. It awarded Rs. 3,00,000 compensation (Rs. 1,50,000 to widow \[name withheld\] and Rs. 1,50,000 shared by six children), recoverable by the State from the guilty officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus, forcible abduction and illegal detention of the victim by the police officials stands conclusively proved.

**Sources (3):** [highcourtchd.gov.in](https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/CRWP_769_1995.pdf); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49491607dba348f00d611); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/169169/charanjit-kaur-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent-1/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Maluka Man vs State of Punjab and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-02-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'ILR 2005(1) P&H 462', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://highcourtchd.gov.in/landmark_judgments/HC/English/CRWP_769_1995.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49491607dba348f00d611', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/169169/charanjit-kaur-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent-1/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC held forcible abduction and illegal detention conclusively proved after CBI-trial conviction u/s 364 IPC, awarding Rs 3 lakh to widow and six children.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2005-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0003)

## Payal Man vs State of Punjab and Others (CW-2005-0004)

**Record:** CW-2005-0004 (compiler id CWC-0317); case PUNJAB-021
**Title:** Payal Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Ashutosh Mohunta
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 8705 of 2002 (O&M) / (2005) 02 P&H CK 0020
**Judgment:** 2005-02-11 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-03-31 (1993)
**Place:** Ludhiana, Punjab; city town: Payal; police station or unit: Punjab Police, Payal area; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 364; IPC 302; IPC 120B; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Punjab Police, Payal area; Special Police Officer, Punjab Police; Police personnel, Punjab Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Payal man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Replace limits sentence with: respondents denied the allegations (denial simplicitor) and the DC pleaded the 20.10.1994 compensation instructions inapplicable and the matter sub judice (para 5). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> it prima facie appears that a Payal man was done to death on the instructions of S.H.\[name withheld\] (respondent No.7) by \[name withheld\] and his co-accused, who are also police officials.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/120607/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Payal Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-02-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2005) 02 P&H CK 0020', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/120607/parminder-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC held killing prima facie on SHO's instructions by police officials and awarded Rs 3 lakh; matches adverse_finding_compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2005-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0004)

## Jandiala Guru Man vs State of Punjab and Others (CW-2006-0002)

**Record:** CW-2006-0002 (compiler id CWC-0312); case PUNJAB-016
**Title:** Jandiala Guru Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Nirmal Yadav
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition 1774 of 1996 / (2006) 02 P&H CK 0174
**Judgment:** 2006-02-03 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-05-08 (1992)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab; city town: Jandiala Guru; police station or unit: Police Station Jandiala Guru; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 363; IPC 342; IPC 330; IPC 201; IPC 218; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Station Jandiala Guru; Inspector, Police Station Jandiala Guru; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Jandiala Guru; Constable, Punjab Police; Constable, Punjab Police; Constable, Punjab Police; Constable, Punjab Police; Punjab Home Guard, Attached to Punjab Police party; Constable Driver, Punjab Police (9 in record)
**Victims:** Jandiala Guru man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Replace final sentence ' ' with the police account from para 3: per the SSP's reply, a Jandiala Guru man was arrested 8.5.1992 at a naka with an unlicensed.30 bore mouser (FIR No.64, Arms Act), made a disclosure statement, and escaped in village Rattan Garh fields while being taken for arms recovery after asking to answer nature's call; he was declared a proclaimed offender. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> custodial disappearance of petitioner's husband, is purely attributable to the remissness and failure of duty on the part of the police department.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/175088/paramjit-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Jandiala Guru Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-02-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2006) 02 P&H CK 0174', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/175088/paramjit-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC held custodial disappearance attributable to police and awarded Rs 1.5 lakh; matches adverse_finding_compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0002)

## Batala Man vs State of Punjab and Others (CW-2009-0012)

**Record:** CW-2009-0012 (compiler id CWC-0714); case GAP8-008
**Title:** Batala Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Misc. No. 19560-M of 2002
**Judgment:** 2009-03-02 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-06-14 (1992)
**Place:** Gurdaspur, Punjab; city town: Batala; police station or unit: Police Station Rangar Nangal, Batala; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Arms Act s.25; Arms Act s.54; Arms Act s.59
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, Police Station Rangar Nangal, Batala; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punjab Police (recovery party) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Batala man, age 20 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. FIR No.146 is dated 13.06.1992 (PS Sadar Batala, ss 25/54/59 Arms Act) — i.e. arrest shown a day BEFORE the alleged 14.6.1992 pickup, not 'later shown arrested'. Reword to: '...while the police showed him arrested in FIR No.146 dated 13.6.1992 under the Arms Act (PS Sadar Batala).'. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A Batala man, son of the petitioner, aged 20 years was in custody of the police. The police was duty bound to ensure safety to his life.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1568180/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Batala Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-03-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Misc. No. 19560-M of 2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1568180/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC disbelieved police recovery-encounter story; Rs.3 lakh compensation for death in custody ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2009-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0012)

## Barnala Man v. State of Punjab (CW-2009-0015)

**Record:** CW-2009-0015 (compiler id CWC-0736); case SWILLEGA-096
**Title:** Barnala Man v. State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Mehtab S. Gill; Jitendra Chauhan
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 332-DB of 1998 with Criminal Misc. No. 35100 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2009-09-23 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-06-20 (1996)
**Place:** Barnala, Punjab; city town: Barnala; police station or unit: Barnala / Raikot investigation, Punjab Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC s.340; CrPC s.482; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sarabjit Rai (Sub-Inspector); Darshan Singh (Assistant Sub-Inspector); Darshan Singh (Deputy Superintendent of Police); Madan Gopal (Superintendent of Police) (4 in record)
**Victims:** Barnala man; Barnala man; Barnala man; Barnala man; Barnala man (5 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 crore (Rs 1,00,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Replace final sentence with: The prosecution case (PW7 statement) and the State's reply narrating FIR No.171/2008 are set out in the judgment; counsel for SI Sarabjit Rai, DSP Darshan Singh and SP Madan Gopal expressly declined to address merits lest it prejudice their clients in proceedings the court might initiate. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Perjury has been committed by the complainant party and the Investigating Officers. They stated lies before the learned trial Court, to get a favourable verdict of conviction against the appellants, which they succeeded in doing so.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1692258/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Barnala Man v. State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-09-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 10,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 332-DB of 1998 with Criminal Misc. No. 35100 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1692258/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held police fabricated murder case, acquitted 5, awarded Rs 20 lakh each + s.340 perjury; subcategory corrected.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2009-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0015)

## Mehal Kalan Police Sub-Inspector (SHO) vs State of Punjab (CW-2010-0016)

**Record:** CW-2010-0016 (compiler id CWC-0715); case GAP8-001
**Title:** Mehal Kalan Police Sub-Inspector (SHO) vs State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Jora Singh
**Case number / citation:** Crl. Appeal No.558-SB of 1999
**Judgment:** 2010-08-10 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-07-31 (1995)
**Place:** Barnala, Punjab (district at time: Sangrur); city town: Mehal Kalan; police station or unit: Police Station Mehal Kalan; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (SHO), Police Station Mehal Kalan (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mehal Kalan man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Vegetable seller a Mehal Kalan man, wanted in a murder FIR, was arrested on 31 July 1995 by SHO and lodged in the Mehal Kalan lock-up at 6:30 p.m.; police claimed he suffered fits at 7 p.m. and died en route to hospital, but the post-mortem showed 15 injuries including testicle injuries and electric-shock marks, and the body was cremated the same night. The trial court convicted the SHO under Section 304 Part-II IPC (1 year RI, Rs.10,000 fine) and acquitted three co-accused. The High Court held a Mehal Kalan man died an unnatural death within about 30 minutes of detention due to torture, dismissed the appeal, and refused probation, observing release would instigate police torture of innocents. Date per judgment's internal header 10.8.2010 (Kanoon title says 10 Sept 2010). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Police officials are the custodial of law. They are to maintain law and order and are not to violate the same.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39001431/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Mehal Kalan Police Sub-Inspector (SHO) vs State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl. Appeal No.558-SB of 1999', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2010-08-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl. Appeal No.558-SB of 1999', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39001431/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SHO's s.304-II conviction for lock-up torture death upheld (1y RI); probation refused.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0016)

## Dhilwan Man vs State of Punjab (CW-2011-0002)

**Record:** CW-2011-0002 (compiler id CWC-0316); case PUNJAB-020
**Title:** Dhilwan Man vs State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Ranjan Gogoi; Adarsh Kumar Goel
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 18326 of 2009 / (2011) 01 P&H CK 0216
**Judgment:** 2011-01-28 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-09-05 (2009)
**Place:** Kapurthala, Punjab; city town: Dhilwan; police station or unit: Police Station Dhilwan; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304; IPC 341; IPC 342; IPC 201; IPC 120B; IPC 306
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Dhilwan; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Dhilwan; Head Constable, Police Station Dhilwan; Head Constable, Police Station Dhilwan (4 in record)
**Victims:** Dhilwan man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. Replace final sentence ' ' with: Per para 7, SI 's stand was that on MHC \[name withheld\]'s telephonic message he called a doctor, who gave an injection and advised hospital; the deceased was taken to hospital at 11.30 PM, put on oxygen, and died there; HC and ASI took a similar stand. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is patent from the findings of the Judicial Magistrate as well as IGP Crime that the deceased was kept in illegal custody on 4.9.2009 without conducting his medical examination and without recording his arrest.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/142505/court-on-its-own-motion-vs-state-of-punjab/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Dhilwan Man vs State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-01-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2011) 01 P&H CK 0216', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/142505/court-on-its-own-motion-vs-state-of-punjab/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC DB recorded illegal custody plus death in custody with Rs 1 lakh interim compensation and ordered CBI probe; matches adverse_finding_compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0002)

## Prithipal Singh Etc. vs State of Punjab & Anr. Etc. (CW-2011-0019)

**Record:** CW-2011-0019 (compiler id CWC-0297); case SWENFORC-002
**Title:** Prithipal Singh Etc. vs State of Punjab & Anr. Etc.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Dr. B.S. Chauhan; P. Sathasivam
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 523-528 of 2009 / (2012) 1 SCC 10; AIR 2012 SC (Criminal) 333; 2012 AIR SCW 594
**Judgment:** 2011-11-04 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-09-06 (1995)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab; city town: Amritsar; police station or unit: Police Station Jhabal, Tarn Taran; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 364; IPC 120B; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Jaspal Singh (Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP)); Satnam Singh (Sub-Inspector (SHO)); Surinderpal Singh (Sub-Inspector); Jasbir Singh (Sub-Inspector); Prithipal Singh (Head Constable) (5 in record)
**Victims:** Amritsar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Human rights activist an Amritsar man, who investigated and exposed the mass illegal cremations of thousands of unidentified bodies by Punjab Police, was abducted outside his Amritsar home on 6 September 1995. He was detained secretly at Police Station Jhabal in Tarn Taran, subjected to severe torture, and subsequently shot dead, with his body discarded in the Harike canal. The trial court and Punjab and Haryana High Court convicted five police personnel, enhancing four abductors sentences to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, upholding the life imprisonment sentences for DSP Jaspal Singh and four other police officers, and observed that tolerance of police atrocities would subvert the rule of law.

> Tolerance of police atrocities, as in the instant case, would amount to acceptance of systematic subversion and erosion of the rule of law.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/342168/); [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/38806.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 48
**display title redacted:** Prithipal Singh Etc. vs State of Punjab & Anr. Etc.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2012) 1 SCC 10; AIR 2012 SC (Criminal) 333; 2012 AIR SCW 594', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-11-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2012) 1 SCC 10; AIR 2012 SC (Criminal) 333; 2012 AIR SCW 594', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/342168/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/38806.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court upheld convictions and life imprisonment sentences of five Punjab Police personnel for the abduction, illegal custody torture, and murder of activist an Amritsar man
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0019)

## Punjab Police Head Constable & Another vs State of Punjab (CW-2011-0044)

**Record:** CW-2011-0044 (compiler id CWC-1069); case GAP3-112-004
**Title:** Punjab Police Head Constable & Another vs State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Ranjit Singh
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Revision No.2576 of 2011 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2011-11-28 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-09-22 (2002)
**Place:** Faridkot, Punjab; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 420
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Punjab Police (PAP Jalandhar circle) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Faridkot man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the criminal revision of Head Constable of the Punjab Police and his wife \[name withheld\], upholding their conviction under s.420 IPC for extracting Rs.70,000 from job-seeker a Faridkot man on the false promise of arranging a police constable post. Rs.50,000 was paid at the accused's police quarter in Jalandhar and Rs.20,000 later at Sadiq, but neither employment nor refund followed. The Court held the evidence was rightly appreciated by the courts below and that non-examination of the go-between was immaterial. The sentence of two years imprisonment with a Rs.2,000 fine each, imposed by the Judicial Magistrate Faridkot and affirmed on appeal, was left unmodified.

> There is positive evidence which has been rightly appreciated and conviction recorded.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153315385/); [legalauthority.in](https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/jasvir-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-6851)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Punjab Police Head Constable & Another vs State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Revision No.2576 of 2011 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-11-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Revision No.2576 of 2011 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153315385/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/jasvir-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-6851', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC rejected revision against s.420 IPC conviction of Head Constable in constable-job scam; SC order corroborates rank and sentence.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0044](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0044)

## Khanna Man vs State of Punjab and Others (CW-2012-0018)

**Record:** CW-2012-0018 (compiler id CWC-0716); case GAP8-002
**Title:** Khanna Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: M.M. Kumar; Alok Singh
**Case number / citation:** CWP No.19054 of 2005 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2012-04-25 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-03-27 (2001)
**Place:** Ludhiana, Punjab; city town: Khanna; police station or unit: Police Station Sadar, Khanna; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (SHO), Police Station Sadar, Khanna (1 in record)
**Victims:** Khanna man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. A Khanna man was arrested on 25 March 2001 in an NDPS case (35 kg poppy husk) at PS Sadar Khanna and remanded to police custody till 28 March 2001 by an order mentioning no injury; on 27 March 2001 he was declared brought dead at Civil Hospital with a swollen eye injury, and the medical board could not fix a cause of death. The Human Rights Commission closed the case finding no negligence. The Division Bench held the deceased had not been dealt with fairly in police custody, presuming the injury was inflicted after remand, set aside the Commission's order following Ram Sagar Yadav, and directed Rs.50,000 compensation within one month. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> not been dealt with fairly at the hands of police while in custody.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192085258/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Khanna Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-04-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'CWP No.19054 of 2005 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192085258/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Unfair treatment in police custody inferred from remand silence; HRC closure set aside; Rs.50K awarded.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0018)

## Ludhiana Man vs State of Punjab and others (CW-2013-0001)

**Record:** CW-2013-0001 (compiler id CWC-0305); case SWENFORC-011
**Title:** Ludhiana Man vs State of Punjab and others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: G.S. Sandhawalia
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 5166 of 1994
**Judgment:** 2013-01-15 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-07-19 (1989)
**Place:** Ludhiana, Punjab; city town: Ludhiana; police station or unit: Police Station Sudhar, Ludhiana; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Ludhiana; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Ludhiana; Sub-Inspector, Police Station Sudhar (4 in record)
**Victims:** Ludhiana man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. A Ludhiana man, a B.Sc. student of Punjab Agricultural University, was forcibly picked up from his Ludhiana home on 9 July 1989 by a police party headed by DSP; his father telegraphed the Chief Justice apprehending torture and false implication, which was treated as habeas corpus CrWP 2301 of 1989. The family then learned from a newspaper report that a Ludhiana man had been killed in an encounter on 19 July 1989. The High Court rejected the State's delay and disputed-facts objections, holding the admitted pickup followed by encounter death established the Article 21 infringement. Finding Rs. 5,00,000 reasonable compensation for the aggrieved mother, the Court allowed the writ and directed payment within two months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 5 lacs for the death of her son who had been picked up by the police officials and was shot dead in a police encounter.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137061167/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/161316/harchet-kaur-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Ludhiana Man vs State of Punjab and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-01-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'CWP No. 5166 of 1994', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137061167/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/161316/harchet-kaur-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC allowed writ for student picked up from home and shot dead in encounter, awarding Rs 5 lakh to mother.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0001)

## Charanjit and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (CW-2013-0007)

**Record:** CW-2013-0007 (compiler id CWC-0351); case SUPREM-038; aliases: CWC-1476
**Title:** Charanjit and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: A. K. Patnaik; Gyan Sudha Misra
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 2007 / (2013) 11 SCC 163; AIR 2013 SC 2896
**Judgment:** 2013-07-04 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-02-09 (1989)
**Place:** Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab (district at time: Hoshiarpur); city town: Balachaur; police station or unit: Balachaur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 323; IPC 504; IPC 376(2)(a); IPC 376(2)(g); IPC 342; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Radha Krishan (Station House Officer); Charanjit; Kashmiri Lal (3 in record)
**Victims:** Balachaur woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 10 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Balachaur SHO Radha Krishan and two policemen convicted of detaining a dai overnight on 9 February 1989 and gang-raping her after picking her up for interrogation about terrorists frequenting her house. The Court sustained the concurrent findings under Sections 323/34, 504/34, 376(2)(a) and 376(2)(g), plus Section 342 against the SHO, believing the victim consistent account corroborated by her husband and neighbour who saw her bleeding and torn-clothed on release. It rejected the police claim of same-evening release with a signed writing, noting the station Daily Diary and Register II were suppressed. No medical evidence existed as doctors refused examination under SHO pressure. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus, the trial court and the High Court have recorded concurrent findings of facts holding the Appellants guilty of the offences under Sections 323/34, 504/34, 376(2)(a) and 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code and the Appellant-Radha Krishan guilty of the offence u/s 342 Indian Penal Code also.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169026887/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/669435/charanjit-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another/); [research.grhari.com](https://research.grhari.com/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-in-police-custody-rape-case-charanjit-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-2013/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Charanjit and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2013) 11 SCC 163; AIR 2013 SC 2896', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2013-07-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2013) 11 SCC 163; AIR 2013 SC 2896', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169026887/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/669435/charanjit-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://research.grhari.com/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-in-police-custody-rape-case-charanjit-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-2013/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified via mirror (primary 429); custodial gang-rape convictions of 3 Balachaur policemen upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0007)

## Baldev Singh vs State of Punjab with \[name withheld\] vs State of Punjab (CW-2013-0013)

**Record:** CW-2013-0013 (compiler id CWC-0342); case NORTH-001
**Title:** Baldev Singh vs State of Punjab with \[name withheld\] vs State of Punjab
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: A. K. Patnaik; Gyan Sudha Misra
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 1303 and 1380 of 2005 / (2014) 12 SCC 473
**Judgment:** 2013-09-20 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-10-29 (1991)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab; city town: Bagga; police station or unit: Police Station Kathunangal; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 364; IPC 452
**Officers (gated display forms):** Baldev Singh (Deputy Superintendent of Police); Constable, Punjab Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** Bagga man; Bagga man; Bagga man; Bagga man; Bagga man; Bagga man; Bagga man (7 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 35 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court (Justices A. K. Patnaik and Gyan Sudha Misra) upheld the abduction convictions of a Punjab DSP and a constable for the 29 October 1991 Bagga abductions of seven men, affirming the trial court's 1998 verdict and the High Court's 2005 dismissal of their appeal. The Court held the abductions proved by the complainant's testimony with corroboration, explaining the FIR delay by threats, but set aside the murder conspiracy convictions for want of last-seen-in-custody evidence under s.106 Evidence Act. Treating each victim as a separate s.364 offence, it ordered five years' RI for each of the seven abductions to run consecutively (35 years) plus fines, with the s.452 term maintained. This criminal trial was the sequel to the Inder Singh habeas compensation order. The judgment names two different men called \[name withheld\]: the appellant-constable convicted in this case and a co-accused of the same name acquitted by the trial court; only the appellant-constable is the convicted officer in this record. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the two Appellants u/s 302 read with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code but maintain the conviction of the Appellants under Sections 364 and 452, Indian Penal Code.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127827057/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af40e4b0149711415f23); [orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net](https://orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net/cms-cnr-data/supreme_court_data/pdf_files/jonew/judis/40798.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** enforced_disappearance
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 28
**display title redacted:** Baldev Singh vs State of Punjab with \[name withheld\] vs State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2014) 12 SCC 473', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2013-09-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2014) 12 SCC 473', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127827057/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af40e4b0149711415f23', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net/cms-cnr-data/supreme_court_data/pdf_files/jonew/judis/40798.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** enforced disappearance
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC maintained s.364/s.452 convictions (7 consecutive terms); murder convictions set aside.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0013)

## Devigarh Man and Others vs State of Punjab and Others (CW-2014-0035)

**Record:** CW-2014-0035 (compiler id CWC-0895); case GAP2-51-002
**Title:** Devigarh Man and Others vs State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Ritu Bahri
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 5710 of 1998 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2014-11-19 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-08-15 (1997)
**Place:** Patiala, Punjab; city town: Devigarh; police station or unit: Police Station Julka, Patiala; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 227
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (Punjab Home Guard), Police Station Julka, Patiala (1 in record)
**Victims:** Devigarh man, age 39 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 23.3 lakh (Rs 23,25,800)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. On 15.08.1997 Punjab Home Guard Constable, posted at PS Julka, Patiala, came with his official rifle to Dhaliwal Nursing Home at Devigarh and shot Dr. A Devigarh man in the chest; the doctor was declared dead at Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, and \[name withheld\] then killed himself with the same rifle, leading to FIR No.87/1997 u/s 302 IPC and an accepted cancellation report. The court rejected the State plea of private-capacity personal enmity, holding that the official rifle entrusted for duty made the State-appointed volunteer's act compensable by the State. Applying Nilabati Behera strict liability under Art.226 and computing on Rajesh vs Rajbir Singh (salary Rs.8,800, multiplier 16 plus consortium/care/funeral heads), it allowed the petition and awarded Rs.23,25,800 to the widow, children and mother within four months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The very fact that \[name withheld\] used his official rifle to kill Dr. A Devigarh man, the victim i.e. the present petitioner is liable to be compensated for the act committed by PHG Volunteer, appointed by the Government.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182667369/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Devigarh Man and Others vs State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-11-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,325,800.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'CWP No. 5710 of 1998 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182667369/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment verified; Home Guard constable with entrusted official rifle killed civilian; Rs.23.25 lakh compensation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0035)

## Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab (CW-2015-0006)

**Record:** CW-2015-0006 (compiler id CWC-0314); case PUNJAB-018
**Title:** Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Darshan Singh
**Case number / citation:** CRA No. S-285-SB of 2004
**Judgment:** 2015-04-08 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-05-02 (2002)
**Place:** Hoshiarpur, Punjab; city town: Mahilpur; police station or unit: Police Station Mahilpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Balbir Singh (Assistant Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mahilpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the bribery conviction of ASI Balbir Singh, who as investigating officer of FIR 23/2002 demanded Rs 5,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] for joining investigation after anticipatory bail, settling for Rs 3,000 at his official quarter on 2 May 2002. A Vigilance Bureau trap with phenolphthalein-treated notes and a shadow witness caught him accepting the money. The Court rejected defences of false implication and sanction invalidity and affirmed one year's rigorous imprisonment with a Rs 5,000 fine. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> I do not find any legal infirmity or impropriety in the conviction and sentence of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court. The same is hereby maintained and affirmed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30863919/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 41
**display title redacted:** Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'CRA No. S-285-SB of 2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2015-04-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'CRA No. S-285-SB of 2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30863919/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ASI's PC Act conviction and 1-year sentence; matches conviction_upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0006)

## Amritsar Man vs State of Punjab and Others (CW-2017-0011)

**Record:** CW-2017-0011 (compiler id CWC-0315); case PUNJAB-019
**Title:** Amritsar Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Kuldip Singh
**Case number / citation:** CRWP 655-2011 with CRM-W-300-2011, CRM-M-14644-2011, CWP 8613-2011
**Judgment:** 2017-09-25 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-03-14 (2011)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab; city town: Amritsar; police station or unit: State Special Operation Cell (SSOC), Amritsar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** SP/DSP, State Special Operation Cell (SSOC), Amritsar; Inspector, State Special Operation Cell (SSOC), Amritsar; Sub-Inspector, State Special Operation Cell (SSOC), Amritsar; Inspector, State Special Operation Cell (SSOC), Amritsar (4 in record)
**Victims:** Amritsar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court awarded Rs 10 lakh to Bhupinder Kaur, widow of an Amritsar man @ an Amritsar man, picked up on 3 March 2011 by SSOC officers, held in illegal custody before remand, and found hanged in the Joint Interrogation Cell on 14 March 2011. Though medical and magisterial inquiries found suicide, the Court held police duty-bound for his safety, found dereliction already punished departmentally, and noted custody-period injuries pointing to torture. It directed payment within two months and dismissed the CBI-probe plea. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> There was dereliction of duty, which was even found in the departmental proceedings and the guilty officials/officers were awarded punishment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197018445/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Amritsar Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-09-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'CRWP 655-2011 with CRM-W-300-2011, CRM-M-14644-2011, CWP 8613-2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197018445/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC found dereliction in custodial death and awarded Rs 10 lakh; matches adverse_finding_compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2017-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0011)

## Hanumangarh Police Head Constable and others vs State of Punjab (CW-2017-0036)

**Record:** CW-2017-0036 (compiler id CWC-1073); case GAP3-114-002
**Title:** Hanumangarh Police Head Constable and others vs State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Kuldip Singh
**Case number / citation:** CRR No. 2295 of 2016 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2017-11-21 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-07-07 (2011)
**Place:** Sangrur, Punjab; city town: Hanumangarh; police station or unit: Sangrur police escort party; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 223
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Sangrur police (escort party); Head Constable, Sangrur police (escort party); Head Constable, Sangrur police (escort party) (3 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

On 6 July 2011 custody of undertrial Harnam Singh was handed to three Sangrur Head Constables for production before the Special Court at Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, and he escaped from their custody on 7 July 2011. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangrur convicted all three under Section 223 IPC (one year simple imprisonment plus Rs 1,000 fine), and the Additional Sessions Judge affirmed on 3 June 2016. The High Court found no illegality in the concurrent findings, upheld jurisdiction at Sangrur and held no sanction was needed, noting the circumstances within the accused special knowledge went unexplained. Maintaining the conviction, the court set aside the substantive sentence and released the three on probation for one year on Rs 25,000 bonds, with Section 12 protection so the conviction is no disqualification. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> while maintaining the conviction of present revisionists under Section 223 IPC, the sentence passed upon them is hereby set aside and they are ordered to be released on probation under Section 5 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157950061/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Hanumangarh Police Head Constable and others vs State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'CRR No. 2295 of 2016 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2017-11-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'CRR No. 2295 of 2016 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157950061/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC maintained S.223 IPC conviction of three escort Head Constables; custodial sentence replaced with probation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0036)

## Verka Man vs State of Punjab and Others (CW-2018-0006)

**Record:** CW-2018-0006 (compiler id CWC-0311); case PUNJAB-015
**Title:** Verka Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Rakesh Kumar Jain
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 2131 of 2016 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2018-04-17 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2015-06-16 (2015)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab; city town: Verka; police station or unit: Amritsar City Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 307; Arms Act 1959 s.25; Arms Act 1959 s.27; IPC 304; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Amritsar City Police; Head Constable, Amritsar City Police; Constable, Amritsar City Police; Head Constable, Amritsar City Police (4 in record)
**Victims:** Verka man, age 38 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20 lakh (Rs 20,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court awarded Rs 20 lakh to Harjit Kaur, widow of a Verka man @ a Verka man (38), killed by an Amritsar police party on 16 June 2015 at Mudhal near Verka with 23 gunshot injuries fired into his car, holding even a dreaded criminal cannot be killed in cold blood in a fake encounter. The Court noted police registered FIR 242/2015 against the deceased to cover up the killing, followed by an SIT and magisterial enquiry, a second FIR against the policemen and departmental enquiries against four officials. It adjusted Rs 5 lakh already paid and directed the Rs 15 lakh balance within three months. Compensation follows Rohtash Kumar and Manjit Kaur precedents. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> award the petitioner in the present case an amount of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation, out of which the amount of Rs.5 lakhs, already paid to the petitioner, shall be deducted/adjusted.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3335249/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1001520/pdf/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Verka Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-04-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'CWP No. 2131 of 2016 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3335249/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1001520/pdf/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** P&H HC held fake-encounter killing and awarded Rs 20 lakh total; matches adverse_finding_compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2018-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0006)

## Bhikhi Man v. State of Punjab and Others (CW-2018-0018)

**Record:** CW-2018-0018 (compiler id CWC-0718); case SWILLEGA-065
**Title:** Bhikhi Man v. State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Rakesh Kumar Jain
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 1247 of 2016
**Judgment:** 2018-07-04 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-08-10 (2013)
**Place:** Mansa, Punjab; city town: Bhikhi; police station or unit: Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** NDPS Act s.22; NDPS Act s.61; NDPS Act s.85
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (SHO), PS Bhikhi, Mansa; Assistant Sub-Inspector, PS Bhikhi, Mansa; Assistant Sub-Inspector, PS Bhikhi, Mansa; Assistant Sub-Inspector, PS Bhikhi, Mansa; Unknown, PS Bhikhi, Mansa; Head Constable, PS Bhikhi, Mansa; Constable, PS Bhikhi, Mansa (7 in record)
**Victims:** Bhikhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court (Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain) awarded Rs 5 lakh to chemist a Bhikhi man, who spent 5 months and 10 days in custody in a concocted NDPS case (FIR No. 60/2013, PS Bhikhi). The Court found the police propounded two parallel stories, shifting the recovery of intoxicant tablets from his shop to a road in village Matti to strengthen the case, a fabrication unearthed only because an SIT was constituted; the FIR was later cancelled. Holding this a sample of police highhandedness, the Court granted public-law compensation following Rini Johar, payable by Punjab within a month with liberty to recover from the erring officials, who had already been suspended and punished with forfeiture of two years' service. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is a sample of highhandedness on the part of the police who had virtually implicated the petitioner in a case concocted by them and as a result thereof, the petitioner had to remain behind the bars for a period of 5 months and 10 days before he was ultimately released on bail.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198196771/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** un-numbered operative para (p.10-11 of judgment); quote spans page break but is contiguous
**display title redacted:** Bhikhi Man v. State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-07-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'CWP No. 1247 of 2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198196771/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** PHHC judgment text verified on Indian Kanoon; Rs 5L award for concocted NDPS case and 5m10d custody matches.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2018-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0018)

## Kot Bhai Woman and Another vs State of Punjab and Others (CW-2019-0012)

**Record:** CW-2019-0012 (compiler id CWC-0717); case GAP8-003
**Title:** Kot Bhai Woman and Another vs State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Arun Monga
**Case number / citation:** CWP No. 4222 of 2015 (O&M) / AIR 2019 (NOC) 730 (P&H)
**Judgment:** 2019-05-03 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-09-30 (2012)
**Place:** Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab; city town: Kot Bhai; police station or unit: Police Station Kot Bhai; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 306; IPC 304-A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector (SHO), Police Station Kot Bhai; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Kot Bhai; Head Constable, Police Station Kot Bhai; Head Constable, Police Station Kot Bhai (4 in record)
**Victims:** Kot Bhai woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 16.4 lakh (Rs 16,42,800)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. A Kot Bhai woman was arrested on 29 September 2012 in an abetment-of-suicide case and lodged in the lock-up at Police Station Kot Bhai. On 30 September 2012 she collapsed after using the bathroom and died at Civil Hospital, Gidderbaha; the State called it suicide, not custodial death. A Section 176 CrPC judicial inquiry and the SP's report found negligence by police personnel, and FIR No.82 under Section 304-A IPC was registered against four policemen. The High Court held it was conceded that she died in police custody due to officials' negligence and allowed the writ, directing the State to disburse Rs.16,42,800 (less Rs.3 lakh interim already paid) with 15% penal interest on delay, apportioned between her parents and two minor children. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Net result is that a Kot Bhai woman committed suicide while in police custody owing to the negligence of State Police.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191104770/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Kot Bhai Woman and Another vs State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-05-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,642,800.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIR 2019 (NOC) 730 (P&H)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191104770/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held custodial death by police negligence; Rs.16,42,800 compensation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0012)

## Punjab Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Punjab (Punjab Police personnel vs State of Punjab; \[name withheld\] and Another vs State of Punjab) (CW-2019-0016)

**Record:** CW-2019-0016 (compiler id CWC-0720); case GAP8-007
**Title:** Punjab Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Punjab (Punjab Police personnel vs State of Punjab; \[name withheld\] and Another vs State of Punjab)
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Rajiv Sharma; Harinder Singh Sidhu
**Case number / citation:** CRA-D-109-DB of 2014 with CRA-D-146-DB of 2014 and CRA-D-298-DB of 2014
**Judgment:** 2019-09-12 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-10-25 (1991)
**Place:** Fazilka, Punjab (district at time: Ferozepur); city town: Abohar; police station or unit: Police Station City Abohar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 148; IPC 302/149; IPC 304 Part II/149; IPC 307/149; Arms Act s.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Punjab Police, Abohar; Head Constable, Punjab Police, Abohar; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Punjab Police, Abohar; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Punjab Police, Abohar (4 in record)
**Victims:** Abohar man, age 30; Abohar man, age 26; Abohar man, age 40; Abohar man; Abohar man, age 40; Abohar man; Abohar boy, age 11; Abohar man, age 18 (8 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 10 yrs; Rs 41.1 lakh (Rs 41,08,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. On 25 October 1991 police fired on unarmed striking workers of Bhawani Cotton Mill, Abohar, killing six workers and two boys and injuring eighteen others; the police then registered FIR No.179 against the labourers claiming self-defence. On the workers' petition the High Court ordered a DIG-rank investigation in 1997, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur convicted four policemen in December 2013. The Division Bench held there was no lawful order to fire on the peaceful assembly and that the counter-case was foisted to save the officials. It converted the Section 302/149 convictions to Section 304 Part-II/149 (quantum hearing fixed 26 September 2019), upheld the Sections 148 and 307/149 and Section 27 Arms Act convictions, abated the appeal of the deceased appellant, and directed the State to pay compensation to eight bereaved families and seventeen injured workmen with 9% interest from the incident date.

> The appellants may not have the intention to cause death of the labourers, but they knew that firing at the unarmed mob would result in deaths.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90020753/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 104
**display title redacted:** Punjab Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Punjab (Punjab Police personnel vs State of Punjab; \[name withheld\] and Another vs State of Punjab)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'CRA-D-109-DB of 2014 with CRA-D-146-DB of 2014 and CRA-D-298-DB of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2019-09-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'CRA-D-109-DB of 2014 with CRA-D-146-DB of 2014 and CRA-D-298-DB of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90020753/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB upheld 148/307-149 and Arms Act convictions, converted 302/149 to 304-II/149, ordered compensation with 9% interest.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 30, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': 26, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': 40, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': 40, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': 11, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 11-year-old boy'}; {'age': 18, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0016)

## Rupnagar Woman v. State of Punjab and Others (CW-2020-0006)

**Record:** CW-2020-0006 (compiler id CWC-0603); case SWILLEGA-024
**Title:** Rupnagar Woman v. State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Rajiv Sharma; Harinder Singh Sidhu
**Case number / citation:** CRWP No. 777 of 2019 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2020-10-06 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-09-02 (2019)
**Place:** Rupnagar, Punjab; city town: Rupnagar; police station or unit: Police Station City Rupnagar (Ropar); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Erring officials who kept detenues under detention, Police Station City Rupnagar (Ropar) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rupnagar woman; Rupnagar woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. A Rupnagar woman is a Rupnagar woman's SISTER (both daughters of Sh. Parvinder Singh), not her daughter; the absconding accused \[name withheld\] is a Rupnagar woman's husband and petitioner \[name withheld\]'s father — a Rupnagar woman is his sister-in-law, not his daughter. Rewrite as: 'a Rupnagar woman and her sister \[name withheld\]... wife and sister-in-law of murder accused \[name withheld\], who was evading arrest.'. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> exact text (para 6): 'As observed by the Ld. Single Judge even if it is accepted that some persons had tried to cause harm to the detenues, even then, both of them could not be kept in the police station for two days without even making entry in the roznamcha and also without informing the District/Illaqa Magistrate. Their continued detention cannot but be termed as illegal.' — record drops the 'As observed by the Ld. Single Judge' prefix and capitalises 'Even'; restore verbatim

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191363216/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/mother-daughter-duo-detained-by-police-without-making-any-entry-in-official-records-ph-hc-awards-compensation-of-rs-2-lakh-164135); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f9624749fca1938d41680ab)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Rupnagar Woman v. State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-10-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'CRWP No. 777 of 2019 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191363216/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/mother-daughter-duo-detained-by-police-without-making-any-entry-in-official-records-ph-hc-awards-compensation-of-rs-2-lakh-164135', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f9624749fca1938d41680ab', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary judgment verified: 2-day detention without roznamcha entry held illegal; Rs.2 lakh total.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2020-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0006)

## Amritsar Man vs State of Punjab and Others (CW-2022-0032)

**Record:** CW-2022-0032 (compiler id CWC-0897); case GAP2-52-002
**Title:** Amritsar Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Amol Rattan Singh
**Case number / citation:** CRWP No. 788 of 2019
**Judgment:** 2022-07-22 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-09-08 (2019)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab; city town: Amritsar; police station or unit: Police Station B-Division Urban, Sultanwind Gate, Amritsar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 342; CrPC s.173
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Additional SHO), Police Station B-Division Urban, Amritsar; Inspector (SHO), Police Station B-Division Urban, Amritsar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Amritsar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Varun Kumar alleged his brother \[name withheld\] was illegally detained at PS B-Division Urban, Amritsar; the warrant officer raid at 00:50 on 09.09.2019 found him in the lock-up, with the detenue claiming custody since 05.09.2019 against the police claim of arrest on 08.09.2019. The Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, on enquiry found illegal detention by SI (Addl. SHO); departmental action forfeited five years approved service with cumulative effect of both the SI and SHO Inspector (lack of supervision), and FIR No.240/2019 u/s 342 IPC was registered with a s.173 CrPC report filed. Relying on Union of India v. Luithukla, the court directed Rs.50,000 compensation to the detenue payable personally by respondent no.6 (SI), made no comment on his challenge to the enquiry, and disposed of the petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> it is considered appropriate that the detenue would be paid Rs.50,000/- by respondent no.6 in view of the enquiry conducted, and the affidavits to that effect filed by the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/89709967/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Amritsar Man vs State of Punjab and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-07-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'CRWP No. 788 of 2019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/89709967/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Habeas corpus verified; illegal detention proved on CP enquiry; Rs.50,000 compensation by erring SI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0032)

## State of Punjab vs Harbhajan Singh and Others (CW-2024-0014)

**Record:** CW-2024-0014 (compiler id CWC-0298); case PUNJAB-002; aliases: CWC-0524
**Title:** State of Punjab vs Harbhajan Singh and Others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Sureshwar Thakur; Sudeepti Sharma
**Case number / citation:** CRA-D-307-DBA-2004 with CRA-S-1071-SB-2003 and CRR-1952-2003 / 2024:PHHC:109434-DB
**Judgment:** 2024-08-23 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-12-07 (1995)
**Place:** Sangrur, Punjab; city town: Sangrur; police station or unit: Railway Police, Sangrur; force: railway
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 343; IPC 325; IPC 324; IPC 323
**Officers (gated display forms):** Gursewak Singh (Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP)); Harbhajan Singh (Station House Officer (SHO)); Kirpal Singh (Head Constable); Jaswant Singh (Head Constable) (4 in record)
**Victims:** Sangrur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

A Sangrur man was abducted from his village home on 14 November 1995 by Railway Police, held for 9 days and brutally tortured with danda blows to the head, rib injuries and near-drowning, released in a crippled state, and died in PGI Chandigarh on 7 December 1995 of ante-mortem injuries sufficient to cause death. The trial court acquitted all of murder, convicting only for hurt and confinement, and cleared the DSP entirely. The Punjab and Haryana High Court credited co-detainee Baghel Singh's inculpatory account over his hostile resiling, which it held was induced by DSP pressure, along with the post-mortem evidence. Reversing the acquittal, it convicted all four, including the DSP, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, with life sentences for the present accused and a separate sentence hearing for the others. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Consequently after allowing the instant appeal/revision respectively filed by the State of Punjab and the complainant, this Court quashes the impugned verdict of acquittal, as made by the learned trial Judge concerned, wherethrough, he made a finding of acquittal in respect a charge drawn for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and modifies the same to the extent that all the accused are held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, in addition to the offence(s) for which respondents No.1 to 3 stand already convicted.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/24959113/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-convicts-dsp-in-1995-custodial-death-case-268832); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/cra-d307-dba200423082024finalorder-2-559809.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 35
**display title redacted:** State of Punjab vs Harbhajan Singh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-08-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2024:PHHC:109434-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-12-19', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 19 December 2024, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: Gursewak Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Jaswant Singh, Kirpal Singh); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6764b0aa1c45974c767b06fa', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2024-12-19', 'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6764b0aa1c45974c767b06fa', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/24959113/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-convicts-dsp-in-1995-custodial-death-case-268832', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/cra-d307-dba200423082024finalorder-2-559809.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Acquittal reversed; DSP and 3 railway police convicted of murder under s.302/34.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2024-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0014)

## XXXX v. State of Punjab (CW-2024-0022)

**Record:** CW-2024-0022 (compiler id CWC-0618); case SWILLEGA-044
**Title:** XXXX v. State of Punjab
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Kirti Singh
**Case number / citation:** CRM-M-40569-2024 (O&M)
**Judgment:** 2024-12-03 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-06-26 (2024)
**Place:** Kapurthala, Punjab; city town: Sultanpur Lodhi; police station or unit: Sultanpur Lodhi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** NDPS Act s.22
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Sultanpur Lodhi Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Sultanpur Lodhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. A Sultanpur Lodhi man @ a Sultanpur Lodhi man was booked in FIR 125 dated 26 June 2024 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act at Sultanpur Lodhi after 525 capsules were recovered from him, but the FSL report received by police on 31 August 2024 showed the tablets contained only acetaminophen (paracetamol). The High Court found police high-handedness in failing to act promptly on the FSL report and get the petitioner released, keeping him in unjust custody till High Court bail on 13 September 2024. The Court awarded Rs 2,00,000 compensation payable within one month, with 50% recoverable from the salary of the erring official Sub-Inspector, and directed masking of the petitioner's name in digital records. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court is deeply troubled by the high-handedness of the police authorities which have flagrantly disregarded the fundamental rights of a citizen as envisaged in the Constitution of India. It is appalling to witness such blatant violation where those entrusted with duty to uphold the rule of law failed to perform their duties.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/crm-m40569202403122024finalorder-575526.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-grants-compensation-unjust-detention-for-carrying-paracetamol-277821)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** XXXX v. State of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-12-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'CRM-M-40569-2024 (O&M)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/crm-m40569202403122024finalorder-575526.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-grants-compensation-unjust-detention-for-carrying-paracetamol-277821', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC order text verified from judgment PDF; Rs 2 lakh compensation with 50% recovery from erring SI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0022)

## Amritsar Man vs State of Punjab and others (CW-2025-0005)

**Record:** CW-2025-0005 (compiler id CWC-0299); case SWFAKEEN-015; aliases: CWC-0606
**Title:** Amritsar Man vs State of Punjab and others
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Harpreet Singh Brar
**Case number / citation:** CRM-M-12183-2016 / 2025:PHHC:068484
**Judgment:** 2025-05-20 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-05-23 (2013)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab; city town: Amritsar; police station or unit: Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21; IPC 304; IPC 302; CrPC 482
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar; Head Constable, Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Amritsar man, age 22 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 15 lakh (Rs 15,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. On 23 May 2013, 22-year-old an Amritsar man alias an Amritsar man was sitting inside a barber shop in Amritsar when Head Constable and Head Constable approached and shot him at point-blank range in the chest, killing him instantly. Police claimed they fired in self-defense against a knife attack and registered an FIR against the deceased, while repeatedly submitting cancellation reports in the subsequent inquiry against the police officers. The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the self-defense theory, pointing out that trained police armed with service pistols could easily apprehend a knife-wielding suspect without shooting at point-blank range into his chest. Finding that the killing constituted an extra-judicial execution by law enforcement donning the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the High Court awarded Rs. 15,00,000 compensation to the deceased mother. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Allowing the act of respondent No.5 to go unchecked would effectively mean validating a death sentence, passed not in line with the due process of law, but by the law enforcement agency donning the role of the judge, jury and executioner.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/crm-m12183201620052025finalorder-601232.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-grants-rs-15-lakh-compensation-to-mother-of-man-killed-by-police-officials-allegedly-in-self-defence-293069)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Amritsar Man vs State of Punjab and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-05-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2025:PHHC:068484', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/crm-m12183201620052025finalorder-601232.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-grants-rs-15-lakh-compensation-to-mother-of-man-killed-by-police-officials-allegedly-in-self-defence-293069', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Punjab and Haryana HC held killing of youth at point-blank range in barber shop an extra-judicial killing, awarding Rs. 15 lakh compensation to mother.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0005)

## Mother's plea re FIR u/s 304 IPC against policemen, Amritsar (title not traced) (CW-2025-0038)

**Record:** CW-2025-0038 (compiler id CWC-1316); case SWDISPRO-020
**Title:** Mother's plea re FIR u/s 304 IPC against policemen, Amritsar (title not traced)
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court; judges: Harpreet Singh Brar
**Case number / citation:** Not stated
**Judgment:** 2025-05-20 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-05-23 (2013)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab; city town: Amritsar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Punjab Police, Amritsar; Head Constable, Punjab Police, Amritsar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Amritsar man, age 22 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 15 lakh (Rs 15,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court (Justice Harpreet Singh Brar) held that the 23 May 2013 point-blank police shooting of 22-year-old an Amritsar man inside an Amritsar barber shop was an excess by the State law-enforcement agency and awarded Rs 15 lakh compensation to his mother. The Court noted the chest wound's black ring proved a point-blank shot fired without warning, arrest attempt or chance to surrender, and rejected self-defence since trained officers with pistols could have arrested a man armed only with a knife. It relied on Prakash Kadam on extra-judicial killings and noted the mother fought 12 years for an FIR and Crime Branch probe. The jurisdictional Magistrate was directed to assess the second cancellation report in the s.304 IPC case. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Allowing the act of respondent No.5 to go unchecked would effectively mean validating a death sentence, passed not in line with the due process of law, but by the law enforcement agency donning the role of the judge, jury and executioner.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw-bennett.refread.com](https://livelaw-bennett.refread.com/pdf_upload/crm-m12183201620052025finalorder-601232.pdf); [lawyerenews.com](https://lawyerenews.com/legal_detail/trigger-happy-policemen-must-know-the-gallows-await-them-punjab-haryana-high-court-grants-rs15-lakh-compensation-for-custodial-killing-of-22-year-old)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Mother's plea re FIR u/s 304 IPC against policemen, Amritsar (title not traced)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['case_title', 'primary_source_url'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-05-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment 2025-05-20', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://livelaw-bennett.refread.com/pdf_upload/crm-m12183201620052025finalorder-601232.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawyerenews.com/legal_detail/trigger-happy-policemen-must-know-the-gallows-await-them-punjab-haryana-high-court-grants-rs15-lakh-compensation-for-custodial-killing-of-22-year-old', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held point-blank police shooting an excess by law-enforcement agency; Rs 15L to mother.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0038)

## State of Punjab & Ors. v. Punjab Armed Police Constable (CW-2025-0044)

**Record:** CW-2025-0044 (compiler id CWC-0915); case GAP2-60-005
**Title:** State of Punjab & Ors. v. Punjab Armed Police Constable
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: J.K. Maheshwari; Vijay Bishnoi
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2012 / 2025 INSC 1056; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 857
**Judgment:** 2025-08-29 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-04-04 (1994)
**Place:** Patiala, Punjab; city town: Bahadurgarh; police station or unit: 2nd Commando Battalion, Bahadurgarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Punjab Armed Police, 2nd Commando Battalion, Bahadurgarh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Constable (No. 2-C/280) of the Punjab Armed Police, posted with the 2nd Commando Battalion at Bahadurgarh, overstayed one day casual leave from 2 April 1994 and rejoined only on 12 May 1994, having already faced three prior departmental actions for absence. The disciplinary authority dismissed him on 3 May 1996, but two civil courts decreed his challenge suit and the Punjab and Haryana High Court sustained that relief in second appeal. The Supreme Court held absence on various occasions in a short tenure of about seven years is gross indiscipline and the gravest act of misconduct under the first limb of Rule 16.2(1), with past record merely lending weight. It set aside the High Court judgment, dismissed the constable suit, and restored the dismissal with the absence period as non-duty. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As such, it is concluded that the dismissal of the respondent was based on gravest act of misconduct, for which he was dealt with by the disciplinary authority following the procedure as prescribed and in due observance of principles of natural justice, hence, we do not find any fault in the same.

**Sources (3):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/state-of-punjab-v-ex-c-satpal-singhwatermark-1740140.pdf); [s3.courtbook.in](https://s3.courtbook.in/2025/08/STATE-OF-PUNJAB-AND-OTHERS.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/past-misconduct-can-add-weight-to-dismissal-even-if-not-mentioned-in-show-cause-notice-supreme-court-302505)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 33
**display title redacted:** State of Punjab & Ors. v. Punjab Armed Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-08-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2025 INSC 1056; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 857', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/state-of-punjab-v-ex-c-satpal-singhwatermark-1740140.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://s3.courtbook.in/2025/08/STATE-OF-PUNJAB-AND-OTHERS.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/past-misconduct-can-add-weight-to-dismissal-even-if-not-mentioned-in-show-cause-notice-supreme-court-302505', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC restored dismissal of habitual-absentee constable; pure service-discipline matter, no civilian victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0044](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0044)

## Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar Man vs State Of Punjab (CW-2026-0097)

**Record:** CW-2026-0097 (compiler id CWC-1387)
**Title:** Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar Man vs State Of Punjab
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Ujjal Bhuyan; Atul S. Chandurkar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 4234 of 2026 (SLP (Crl.) No. 11103 of 2026) / 2026 INSC 1022
**Judgment:** 2026-09-21 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-05-17 (2026)
**Place:** Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab; police station or unit: Police Station Mataur, SAS Nagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India; Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India; Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (investigating officer), Police Station Mataur, SAS Nagar, Punjab Police; Inspector, Station House Officer, Police Station Mataur, SAS Nagar, Punjab Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The Supreme Court recorded that Punjab Police arrested a man at about 07:54 am on 17.05.2026 in a case registered at Mataur Police Station and produced him before the duty Magistrate only around noon on 18.05.2026, and that no written grounds of arrest were given to him; the Magistrate declared the arrest illegal and ordered his release. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order of 29.05.2026 staying that release. It held that re-arrest after such a breach needs the Magistrate's permission on an application that first furnishes the grounds of arrest. The State told the Court that a preliminary enquiry found the investigating Assistant Sub-Inspector guilty of blatant neglect of duty and that he was suspended, while the Station House Officer was transferred. The Court directed departmental enquiry in such lapses and expressed no opinion on the merits of the accusation.

> If the enquiry culminates in adverse finding against the erring police officer(s), it would entail departmental action with entry in the service book of such officer(s).

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144049703/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/21/3504120262026-09-21-701585.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/police-officer-who-arrests-without-furnishing-written-grounds-must-face-departmental-enquiry-supreme-court-551024)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Court finding', 'position_explainer': 'A court has made a finding on this allegation.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar Man vs State Of Punjab
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Past-week sweep: record written from the order text; quote checked verbatim against the order.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "The Supreme Court upheld the Magistrate's finding that the arrest breached Article 22 and set aside the High Court's stay; the State reported the investigating officer suspended and the SHO transferred.", 'disposition': 'adverse finding', 'source': '2026 INSC 1022', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-25
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144049703/', 'link_checked': '2026-09-25'}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Checked against the Supreme Court judgment dated 21.09.2026 (2026 INSC 1022). No compensation was awarded in this judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0097](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0097)

## Railway Protection Force Sub-Inspector vs The State (CW-1974-0002)

**Record:** CW-1974-0002 (compiler id CWC-1079); case GAP3-118-003
**Title:** Railway Protection Force Sub-Inspector vs The State
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; judges: K.D. Sharma
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1971 / (1974) WLN 324
**Judgment:** 1974-02-11 (1974, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1969-04-22 (1969)
**Place:** Jaipur, Rajasthan; city town: Jaipur; police station or unit: Railway Protection Force Post, Western Railway, Jaipur; force: railway
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d) r/w s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force Post, Western Railway, Jaipur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jaipur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. RPF Sub-Inspector, in charge of the RPF post at Western Railway, Jaipur, demanded Rs 1,000 from shunter a Jaipur man — Rs 500 immediately — as the price for releasing him on bail in railway-property case Crime No. 9 of 1969 in April 1969. The Anti-Corruption Department laid a trap with marked currency, recovered the notes from the appellant's pocket, and the Special Judge, Jaipur convicted him under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 500 fine. The court found both charges proved beyond reasonable doubt, held the sentence was not severe with no mitigating circumstances, dismissed the appeal, cancelled his bail, and directed the District Magistrate, Jaipur to have him arrested to serve the sentence.

> The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/216125/om-prakash-mathur-vs-the-state/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Railway Protection Force Sub-Inspector vs The State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1974) WLN 324', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1974-02-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(1974) WLN 324', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/216125/om-prakash-mathur-vs-the-state/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified; RPF Sub-Inspector's trap-case bribery conviction and 1-year sentence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1974-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1974-0002)

## State of Rajasthan vs Pali Police Head Constable (CW-1977-0001)

**Record:** CW-1977-0001 (compiler id CWC-0724); case GAP13-001
**Title:** State of Rajasthan vs Pali Police Head Constable
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: S.N. Modi
**Case number / citation:** Special Appeal against S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 535 of 1966 / 1977 WLN 645
**Judgment:** 1977-10-26 (1977, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1953-02-07 (1953)
**Place:** Pali, Rajasthan; city town: Pali; police station or unit: Reserve Police Lines, Pali; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Reserve Police Lines, Pali (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Head Constable, working as Accounts Clerk at Pali police lines, refused on 7 February 1953 to let the Additional SP verify the cash box, misbehaved with the officers, and behaved insolently at the SP's residence until the SDM was called. After a fresh departmental enquiry he was dismissed in September 1960, and a Single Judge quashed the dismissal in 1969. The Division Bench held only the gross-insubordination charge proved but grave enough in a police employee to sustain dismissal, reversed the Single Judge, and restored the dismissal. No civilian victim is involved; this is a departmental disciplinary matter. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We accordingly reverse the judgment under appeal and hold that the order of dismissal of the respondent dated September 7, 1960 passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police was not liable to be quashed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1786114/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** State of Rajasthan vs Pali Police Head Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1977-10-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '1977 WLN 645', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1786114/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB judgment verified; head constable dismissal for gross insubordination restored (no civilian victim).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1977-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1977-0001)

## State of Rajasthan vs Rajgarh Police Head Constable (CW-1980-0003)

**Record:** CW-1980-0003 (compiler id CWC-0725); case GAP13-002
**Title:** State of Rajasthan vs Rajgarh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: P.D. Kudal
**Case number / citation:** D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 769 of 1972 with S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 535 of 1972 / 1980 WLN 17
**Judgment:** 1980-01-11 (1980, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1965-06-25 (1965)
**Place:** Alwar, Rajasthan; city town: Rajgarh; police station or unit: Rajgarh Police Station, Alwar; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 409
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Rajgarh Police Station, Alwar; Station House Officer, Rajgarh Police Station, Alwar; Constable, Rajgarh Police Station, Alwar (3 in record)
**Victims:** Rajgarh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. A Rajgarh man, wanted in a kidnapping case, was detained at Rajgarh police station from 25 June 1965; the SHO, head constable and constable took his cycle, Rs.200 and other articles without entering them in the arrest memo, and the SHO allegedly beat him on the night of 29-30 June to extort more money, leaving 17 contusions. The Special Judge convicted only Head Constable under Section 409 IPC and acquitted the other two. The Division Bench confirmed the 6 months rigorous imprisonment plus Rs.500 fine and ordered his surrender, dismissed the State appeal on conspiracy, hurt and corruption charges for want of evidence, and, the SHO having died, passed no verdict on the beating while deprecating third-degree methods.

> There is absolutely no merit in the appeal filed by \[name withheld\]. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/239746/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** State of Rajasthan vs Rajgarh Police Head Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1980 WLN 17', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1980-01-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '1980 WLN 17', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/239746/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB judgment verified; head constable s.409 conviction (6 months RI + fine) confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1980-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1980-0003)

## Churu Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others (CW-1986-0003)

**Record:** CW-1986-0003 (compiler id CWC-1078); case GAP3-118-002
**Title:** Churu Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; judges: Ashok Kumar Mathur
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1096 of 1985 / (1986) WLN 550
**Judgment:** 1986-08-29 (1986, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1981-05-28 (1981)
**Place:** Churu, Rajasthan; city town: Churu; police station or unit: Police Line, Churu; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 307; Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16; Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 19(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Line, Churu (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable of the Rajasthan Police challenged his removal from service after remaining absent from the Police Line, Churu from 28 May 1981 to 4 February 1982 and failing to appear before the enquiry officer despite repeated summons. He pleaded that his father had been attacked and hospitalised, that a land dispute had led to his implication in a Section 307 IPC case, and that no enquiry notice was served on him. The court found that he had deliberately avoided service and the enquiry despite knowledge of the charge-sheet, calling such conduct grossly indisciplined and least expected of a member of a disciplined force. It held that reasons for dispensing with a Rule 16 enquiry under Rule 19(2) of the 1958 Rules could be contained in the final order, and dismissed the writ petition, keeping the removal in force. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is least expected from a disciplined force official to avoid service of notice and avoid to appear before the Enquiry Officer for one reason or the other and such conduct cannot be lightly condoned.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/194189/vinod-kumar-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Churu Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1986-08-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1986) WLN 550', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/194189/vinod-kumar-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified; police constable's removal for wilful absence upheld, writ dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1986-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1986-0003)

## Salumber Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others (CW-1994-0007)

**Record:** CW-1994-0007 (compiler id CWC-1077); case GAP3-118-001
**Title:** Salumber Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; judges: P.K. Palli; J.R. Chopra
**Case number / citation:** D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 103 of 1994 / (1994) 1 RLW 411 : (1994) 1 WLN 281
**Judgment:** 1994-04-08 (1994, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-11-19 (1983)
**Place:** Udaipur, Rajasthan; city town: Salumber; police station or unit: Police Station Sarada; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 452; IPC 323; IPC 427
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Station Sarada, Udaipur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Salumber man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. On 19 November 1983 Constable of Police Station Sarada entered the quarters of ASI with a knife, tried to throttle and beat him, and threatened to kill him, leading to a criminal case under Sections 452, 323 and 427 IPC alongside a departmental enquiry. The disciplinary authority imposed removal/dismissal on 31 January 1985, affirmed in departmental appeal in October 1986, while the criminal trial convicted in 1987 but the appellate court acquitted in August 1988 for want of corroboration. The Single Judge dismissed the writ on 24 January 1994, holding simultaneous proceedings lawful and the dismissal on preponderance of probabilities unaffected by the benefit-of-doubt acquittal. The Division Bench agreed with that reasoning and dismissed the special appeal, so the dismissal stands.

> We are in respectful agreement to the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/214572/laxman-lal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/217259/laxman-lal-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Salumber Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1994-04-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1994) 1 RLW 411 : (1994) 1 WLN 281', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/214572/laxman-lal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/217259/laxman-lal-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Constable dismissal for knife attack on ASI upheld on preponderance despite later criminal acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1994-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1994-0007)

## Ami Lal and Ors. vs State of Rajasthan (CW-1995-0004)

**Record:** CW-1995-0004 (compiler id CWC-0322); case RAJAST-004
**Title:** Ami Lal and Ors. vs State of Rajasthan
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: Rajendra Saxena
**Case number / citation:** 1996 Cri LJ 1585
**Judgment:** 1995-07-03 (1995, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1977-05-05 (1977)
**Place:** Churu, Rajasthan; city town: Sidhmukh; police station or unit: Sidhmukh Police Outpost, Rajgarh Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 395; IPC 353; IPC 224; IPC 109
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ami Lal (Head Constable); Dayanand (Constable) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Sidhmukh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 4.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction and sentences of Head Constable Ami Lal and Constable Dayanand of Sidhmukh Outpost (PS Rajgarh, Churu). After demanding a bribe of Rs. 1,000 from complainant, the officers were trapped by an Anti-Corruption Department raid party on 5 May 1977. To evade capture and destroy evidence, the officers instigated an armed mob of villagers to attack the trap team, forcefully snatch back the marked bribe notes, and facilitate Ami Lal escape from lawful arrest. Affirming the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Churu, the High Court refused probation to the police officers and maintained their sentences of 4.5 years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 395, 353, and 224 read with Section 109 IPC. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Hence for the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and the conviction and sentence of the appellants Ami Lal, H. C. and Dayanand, Constable are hereby maintained. The learned Sessions Judge, Chur shall immediately issue non-bailable warrants against these appellants to secure their arrest and send them to jail to serve out their sentences.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1280281/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 34
**display title redacted:** Ami Lal and Ors. vs State of Rajasthan
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1996 Cri LJ 1585', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1995-07-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '1996 Cri LJ 1585', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1280281/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rajasthan High Court upheld conviction and 4.5-year RI sentence of Head Constable Ami Lal and Constable Dayanand for instigating mob attack/dacoity to foil an anti-corruption trap and escaping custody.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1995-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1995-0004)

## Kuchaman City Man vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. (CW-2000-0004)

**Record:** CW-2000-0004 (compiler id CWC-0321); case RAJAST-003; aliases: CWC-1428
**Title:** Kuchaman City Man vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: B.J. Shethna
**Case number / citation:** 2000 Cri LJ 4484
**Judgment:** 2000-05-15 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-06-17 (1997)
**Place:** Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan (district at time: Nagaur); city town: Kuchaman City; police station or unit: Kuchaman City Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 226; IPC 302; IPC 342; IPC 323; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Kuchaman City Police Station; Constable, Kuchaman City Police Station; Constable, Kuchaman City Police Station; Constable, Kuchaman City Police Station; Constable, Kuchaman City Police Station (5 in record)
**Victims:** Kuchaman City man, age 25 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowed an Article 226 writ petition filed by Mst. Madina, the 23-year-old widow of a Kuchaman City man, who died in police custody within three hours of being detained on 17 June 1997 for alleged theft of a guar gum bag. The post-mortem examination revealed that a Kuchaman City man died from haemorrhagic shock resulting from kidney injuries sustained through third-degree torture at Kuchaman City Police Station. Rejecting the State argument that disputed facts barred writ jurisdiction, the Court held that the custodial death was undisputed on record and directed the State of Rajasthan to pay Rs. 3,00,000 as interim compensation to the widow and four minor children, with directions to recover the amount proportionately from the erring police officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the light of the aforesaid, there cannot be any difficulty in coming to the prima facie conclusion that the death of a Kuchaman City man was caused by the police in its custody.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/814987/); [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/18545/18545_2013_Judgement_15-Sep-2017.pdf); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609a491e4b01497113f6e2a)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Kuchaman City Man vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-05-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2000 Cri LJ 4484', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/814987/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/18545/18545_2013_Judgement_15-Sep-2017.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609a491e4b01497113f6e2a', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rajasthan High Court awarded Rs 3,00,000 interim compensation under Art. 226 for custodial death of a Kuchaman City man due to third-degree torture at Kuchaman City PS, recoverable from erring officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2000-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0004)

## Jodhpur Police Constable vs The State of Rajasthan and Others (CW-2000-0015)

**Record:** CW-2000-0015 (compiler id CWC-1080); case GAP3-119-001
**Title:** Jodhpur Police Constable vs The State of Rajasthan and Others
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: S.K. Garg; B.J. Shethna
**Case number / citation:** Civil Special Appeal No. 407 of 1999 / (2000) 4 RLW 344
**Judgment:** 2000-09-01 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-08-30 (1987)
**Place:** Jodhpur, Rajasthan; city town: Jodhpur; police station or unit: Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jodhpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jodhpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Jodhpur woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Police Constable was removed from service after a Rule 16 enquiry found that on the night of 30 August 1987 he misbehaved with a fellow constable's wife, was found fully drunk at Sadar Bazar police station, Jodhpur, fled, and produced a forged M.G. Hospital medical certificate to cover absence from 25 to 30 August 1987. He contended that non-supply of the enquiry report, non-speaking orders, and an excessive penalty vitiated the removal. The Division Bench found the enquiry fair with full opportunity of cross-examination, held that mere non-supply of the report without shown prejudice does not vitiate removal, and called the orders speaking orders. It held removal rather than dismissal was lenient given charges of a very serious nature, and dismissed the special appeal.

> The charges levelled against the appellant were of very serious nature. He was a constable in the police department who was found to be mis-behaving with the wife of his neighbour constable.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/560696/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/200992/mani-kumar-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/767496/mani-kumar-vs-state-rajasthan-ors)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Jodhpur Police Constable vs The State of Rajasthan and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-09-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2000) 4 RLW 344', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/560696/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/200992/mani-kumar-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/767496/mani-kumar-vs-state-rajasthan-ors', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified; constable's removal for drunken misbehaviour, absence and forged certificate upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2000-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0015)

## Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (CW-2001-0012)

**Record:** CW-2001-0012 (compiler id CWC-1081); case GAP3-119-002
**Title:** Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: H.R. Panwar; B.J. Shethna
**Case number / citation:** Civil Special Appeal No. 72 of 2001 / (2001) 2 RLW 819
**Judgment:** 2001-01-25 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-06-02 (1997)
**Place:** Rajasthan; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Rajasthan Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Police Constable, selected in December 1996 and on duty from February 1997, left duty on 2 June 1997 without intimation or leave and stayed continuously absent until 10 November 1997 — 162 days — ignoring a show-cause notice to report immediately, with a prior 43-day absence on record. He pleaded his mother's serious illness and ignorance of rules as a novice, and contended termination was disproportionate. The Division Bench found these unsubstantiated lame excuses with no medical certificate produced, held that 162 days' absence without leave in a disciplined police force is serious misconduct for which no order except termination could be passed, and dismissed the special appeal.

> If he was in the other department, then there would have been a different consideration but the appellant was in police department which is a disciplined force where such along absence of 162 days from duly without any leave should be viewed as a serious mis-conduct for which no other order except the order of termination could be passed.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137789/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/212008/navratan-mal-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758820/navratan-mal-vs-state-rajasthan-ors)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-01-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2001) 2 RLW 819', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137789/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/212008/navratan-mal-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758820/navratan-mal-vs-state-rajasthan-ors', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified; constable's termination for 162 days' absence without leave upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2001-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0012)

## Magha Puri vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (CW-2008-0014)

**Record:** CW-2008-0014 (compiler id CWC-0327); case RAJAST-002
**Title:** Magha Puri vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jodhpur; judges: Vineet Kothari
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1614/1996
**Judgment:** 2008-11-11 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-01-01 (1990)
**Place:** Bikaner, Rajasthan; city town: Bikaner; police station or unit: Naya Shehar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 498A; IPC 406; IPC 420
**Officers (gated display forms):** Magha Puri (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bikaner man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Principal Seat of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a writ petition filed by dismissed Constable Magha Puri of Naya Shehar Police Station, Bikaner, upholding his dismissal from service. A departmental inquiry had found Magha Puri guilty of demanding and taking an illegal gratification of Rs. 40,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] and others to compromise and settle a pending criminal case registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The High Court affirmed the findings of the inquiry officer based on testimony of independent witnesses and held that accepting a bribe to settle a criminal case was grave misconduct warranting the punishment of dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus, this Court finds no ground to quash the impugned orders passed by disciplinary authority and appellate authority awarding punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition has no force and same is accordingly dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/962936/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Magha Puri vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-11-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1614/1996', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/962936/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rajasthan High Court upheld the dismissal of Constable Magha Puri for demanding and accepting a Rs. 40,000 bribe to settle a criminal case.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0014)

## Barmer Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan (with Kishore Singh vs State; \[name withheld\] vs State) (CW-2008-0015)

**Record:** CW-2008-0015 (compiler id CWC-0330); case RAJAST-005
**Title:** Barmer Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan (with Kishore Singh vs State; \[name withheld\] vs State)
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jodhpur; judges: A.M. Kapadia; Deo Narayan Thanvi
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 31/2006 with D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 235/2006 and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 70/2006
**Judgment:** 2008-11-19 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-02-01 (1994)
**Place:** Barmer, Rajasthan; city town: Barmer; police station or unit: Sadar Police Station, Barmer; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 326; IPC 342
**Officers (gated display forms):** Kishore Singh (Constable); Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Barmer; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Sadar, Barmer (1 in record)
**Victims:** Barmer man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 4 yrs; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur partly allowed the appeals of three policemen convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, for the February 1994 illegal confinement, beating and castration of a Barmer man, who was locked in the barrack of Sadar Police Station, Barmer for four days while Rs 30-40 thousand was demanded for his release. The Court acquitted SHO and ASI of all charges, but maintained Constable Kishore Singh conviction for grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC, reducing the life term to the period already undergone (about four years) while enhancing the fine to Rs 1 lakh payable to the injured complainant, and altering his wrongful-confinement conviction from Section 343 to Section 342 IPC with one year rigorous imprisonment concurrent. The CBI had investigated the case and the Court held custodial punishment with enhanced fine sufficient on the totality of facts. \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] were acquitted in this judgment, but their acquittals were later set aside by the Supreme Court in the appeal covered by a companion record of this dataset, under which their final status is convicted. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> While acquitting appellant Kishore Singh of the offences u/ss.323, 308 and 120B read with 343, 323, 384, 326 & 308 IPC, his conviction for the offence u/s.326 IPC is maintained and he is sentenced to the period already undergone, instead of life imprisonment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/999298/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Barmer Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan (with Kishore Singh vs State; \[name withheld\] vs State)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 31/2006 with D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 235/2006 and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 70/2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2008-11-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 31/2006 with D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 235/2006 and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 70/2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/999298/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rajasthan High Court maintained s.326 conviction of Constable Kishore Singh for castrating detenu \[name withheld\], reducing life term to period undergone (~4 years) with Rs 1 lakh fine to victim; SHO and ASI acquitted.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0015)

## Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another (CW-2008-0030)

**Record:** CW-2008-0030 (compiler id CWC-0901); case GAP2-54-004
**Title:** Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; judges: H.R. Panwar
**Case number / citation:** (2009) 3 RLW 2163
**Judgment:** 2008-12-11 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-01-01 (1996)
**Place:** Rajasthan; police station or unit: Rajasthan Police Department; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Rajasthan Police Department (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable voluntarily remained absent without leave, and a Rule 16 inquiry proved 57 days absence in 1996 with a record of repeated voluntary absence; the disciplinary authority terminated him on 26.10.1996 as a habitual absentee. He never filed a statutory appeal or review in his lifetime and died on 30.04.1999, after which his widow \[name withheld\] filed the writ. The court held inquiry procedure was followed with defence representation and no natural-justice violation, the delinquent had accepted the punishment in his lifetime, the post-death writ suffered delay and laches, and interference scope on findings and quantum is very limited. It held termination not disproportionate and dismissed the writ with no order as to costs (posting district not stated in judgment).

> It cannot be said that the punishment imposed to the delinquent police constable is disproportionate to the delinquency.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/221718/heera-mani-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-another-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-12-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2009) 3 RLW 2163', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/221718/heera-mani-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-another-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ verified; termination of habitually absent constable upheld on widow's petition.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0030)

## Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (CW-2009-0019)

**Record:** CW-2009-0019 (compiler id CWC-1084); case GAP3-121-002
**Title:** Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jodhpur; judges: Govind Mathur
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4155/1997
**Judgment:** 2009-02-10 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-07-06 (1994)
**Place:** Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan (district at time: Nagaur); city town: Makrana; police station or unit: Police Station Makrana (under DSP Makrana); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 451; IPC 323; IPC 504; Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16; Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 227
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Rajasthan Police, Makrana (1 in record)
**Victims:** Makrana resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Rajasthan Police Constable was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 on two counts: assaulting a civilian on 6 July 1994 (FIR No. 53 under Sections 451, 323 and 504 IPC) and disobeying the DSP 's order of 8 July 1994 to report at Police Station Makrana, challenging the superior to take any action. A regular inquiry examining 11 prosecution witnesses found both charges proved, leading to removal from service in December 1996, affirmed in appeal in October 1997. The court found the criminal act and gross misbehaviour toward the superior stood established on adequate evidence, held a member of a disciplined force must act cautiously and adhere to discipline, and held removal was not shockingly disproportionate. It dismissed the writ petition, sustaining the removal. Later proceedings: on 12 September 2018, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> From perusal of the inquiry report and order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it is apparent that the petitioner was found guilty for indulging himself in criminal act and also gross misbehaviour and indiscipline with his superior officer.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1943380/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.
**final outcome url:** https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124408658/
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-02-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4155/1997', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2018-09-12', 'action_type': 'Order set aside', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'Later proceedings: on 12 September 2018, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand.', 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Conviction not standing', 'source': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124408658/', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'date': '2018-09-12', 'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124408658/', 'outcome': 'conviction_set_aside'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1943380/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** overturned
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified; constable's removal for civilian assault and insubordination upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0019)

## Rajasthan Woman vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (CW-2009-0020)

**Record:** CW-2009-0020 (compiler id CWC-1085); case GAP3-121-003
**Title:** Rajasthan Woman vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jodhpur; judges: H.R. Panwar
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2009
**Judgment:** 2009-02-17 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Rajasthan; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Rajasthan Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. The widow of police Constable, appointed in February 1976, sought quashing of his removal from service for habitual wilful absence and release of retiral benefits and family pension. The inquiry officer had found the absence charges proved, the disciplinary authority removed him in March 1993 and again in January 1996 after an appellate remand, and her review before the Governor filed in July 2007 was dismissed as time-barred. The court found he was a habitual absentee who repeatedly absented without leave, held the prescribed inquiry procedure was followed and a writ court cannot set aside a well-reasoned disciplinary order on sympathy, and held the punishment was not disproportionate. It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the removal and denial of retiral benefits intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the instant case, it is evident from the inquiry report that the husband of the petitioner being police constable, an employee of the respondent Police Department in Uniform repeatedly remained absent without leave voluntarily.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29647231/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Rajasthan Woman vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-02-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29647231/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified; deceased constable's removal for habitual absence upheld; widow's writ dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0020)

## Zawar Mines Police Constable vs Union of India and Others (CW-2009-0023)

**Record:** CW-2009-0023 (compiler id CWC-1087); case GAP3-121-005
**Title:** Zawar Mines Police Constable vs Union of India and Others
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; judges: Govind Mathur
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 819/1998
**Judgment:** 2009-04-08 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-02-29 (1996)
**Place:** Udaipur, Rajasthan; city town: Zawar Mines; police station or unit: CISF Unit Zawar Mines; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Zawar Mines, Udaipur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. CISF Constable was on patrol of explosives magazines 1 to 6 at Zawar Mines, Udaipur, on the night of 28-29 February 1996, after which theft of 930 non-electric detonators was reported at about 05:20 hours. The court recorded that he was charge-sheeted in May 1996 for patrol negligence and for getting relieved without handing over physical charge, found guilty after a regular inquiry, removed from service in October 1996, and his appeal was rejected in February 1997. The court held the theft must have occurred during his duty hours since seven high-security locks could not have been broken in 20 minutes, found no fault in the disciplinary or appellate orders, and dismissed the writ, leaving the removal intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> An inference as such was rightly drawn on basis of all available evidence that the theft occured during duty hours of the petitioner and he was negligent in discharging his duties.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21632312/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Zawar Mines Police Constable vs Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-04-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 819/1998', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21632312/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified; CISF constable removal for patrol negligence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0023)

## Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others (CW-2009-0025)

**Record:** CW-2009-0025 (compiler id CWC-1086); case GAP3-121-004
**Title:** Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; judges: Govind Mathur
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8120/2007
**Judgment:** 2009-05-05 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1973-01-01 (1973)
**Place:** Rajasthan; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 14; Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 23; Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Rajasthan Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable joined the Rajasthan Police on 11 May 1973 against a Scheduled Caste vacancy on a 1969 caste certificate, and was charge-sheeted in November 2006 for obtaining the appointment by a false certificate. The court recorded that he first denied the charge but admitted guilt in writing on 16 December 2006, and was awarded withholding of pension from his 31 December 2006 retirement, affirmed on appeal in June 2007. The court held the appointment was void ab initio and that no penalty less than dismissal was proportionate, but on equity substituted the penalty with withholding of pension beyond the minimum pension under the 1996 Pension Rules, payable from the date of the writ decision. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The narration of facts makes it apparent that the petitioner obtained appointment by playing fraud and that cannot be condoned.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1734881/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-05-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8120/2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1734881/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified; police constable appointment-fraud penalty sustained as modified.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0025)

## Dungarpur Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (CW-2009-0032)

**Record:** CW-2009-0032 (compiler id CWC-1083); case GAP3-121-001
**Title:** Dungarpur Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jodhpur; judges: Govind Mathur
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 648/1997
**Judgment:** 2009-10-29 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-02-01 (1992)
**Place:** Dungarpur, Rajasthan; city town: Dungarpur; police station or unit: Police Line, Dungarpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 420; IPC 379; Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16; Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 227
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Line, Dungarpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Dungarpur resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Rajasthan Police Constable of Police Line, Dungarpur was charge-sheeted in 1994 for allegedly taking a Rs 40,000 bribe from a Dungarpur resident, an accused in a customs/smuggling matter, in February 1992, tarnishing the image of the police. The inquiry officer found him not guilty, but the disciplinary authority disagreed after notice and removed him from service in September 1995 — affirmed in appeal in August 1996 — while the ACJM No. 1, Udaipur acquitted him in the related criminal case under Sections 420 and 379 IPC in August 1995. The court found the complainant and police investigation witnesses supported the bribe allegation, held the disciplinary authority was entitled to disagree with reasons after notice, and held the benefit-of-doubt criminal acquittal does not vitiate a departmental finding on preponderance of probability. It dismissed the writ petition, sustaining the removal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case, the complainant \[name withheld\] and other police officials, who made investigation in the case, supported the allegations. Sole defence of the delinquent employee was that the police officials made wrong statements because of bias, but he failed to satisfy the reason for such bias. Nothing is said by him regarding any nexus between the complainant and the police officials.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569957/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Dungarpur Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-10-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 648/1997', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569957/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified; constable's removal for Rs 40,000 bribe-taking upheld despite criminal acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0032)

## Bikaner Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another (CW-2010-0026)

**Record:** CW-2010-0026 (compiler id CWC-0899); case GAP2-54-002
**Title:** Bikaner Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; judges: Jagdish Bhalla; Dinesh Maheshwari
**Case number / citation:** Special Appeal (Writ) arising from CWP No. 1814/1992 / (2010) 2 WLN 465
**Judgment:** 2010-03-22 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bikaner, Rajasthan; police station or unit: Bikaner district police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Bikaner district police, Rajasthan (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 CCA Rules for habitual absence (earlier dismissed in 1983, reinstated in 1986; absent 40 times in about 8.5 years), inattention to duties, indisciplined conduct and blackmail of officers, and engineering a false ACB bribery trap against Inspector (Wireless) \[name withheld\] over what was a loan repayment. He did not participate in the inquiry despite opportunities; the SP Bikaner dismissed him on 12.06.1991, the DIG dismissed his appeal on 03.01.1992, and the Single Judge dismissed his writ on 29.05.1997. The Division Bench held he could not complain of ex parte proceedings, no prejudice was shown, he relied on a prima facie fabricated document, and the habitual-absenteeism finding in a disciplined service was sound. It dismissed the appeal with Rs.5,500 costs (no single incident date; misconduct spanned 1983-1991).

> The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,500/- (five thousand and five hundred).

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/213635/hanumana-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-another/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 27
**display title redacted:** Bikaner Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-03-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2010) 2 WLN 465', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/213635/hanumana-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-another/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Special appeal verified; dismissal of habitually absent constable upheld with Rs.5,500 costs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0026)

## Sadulshahar Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others (CW-2010-0029)

**Record:** CW-2010-0029 (compiler id CWC-0900); case GAP2-54-003
**Title:** Sadulshahar Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; judges: Vineet Kothari
**Case number / citation:** (2010) 3 RLW 2777
**Judgment:** 2010-05-19 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-04-02 (1994)
**Place:** Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan; city town: Sadulshahar; police station or unit: Sri Ganganagar district police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 222; IPC 223; Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Sri Ganganagar district police, Rajasthan; Constable, Sri Ganganagar district police, Rajasthan (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

On 02.04.1994 constables and \[name withheld\] escorting six accused to the MJM Sadulshahar court lost two accused (Nakli @ \[name withheld\] and Billu); the ASP Hanumangarh enquiry disbelieved the 'nature's call at the bus stand' defence and found \[name withheld\] ferried the two accused by jeep to village Alipura for extraneous reasons with \[name withheld\] hands-in-glove, with FIR No.83/1994 u/s 222-223 IPC also registered. The SP dismissed both constables in 1995 and the DIG dismissed their appeal; \[name withheld\] died during the writs, pursued by petitioner \[name withheld\]. The court held the findings rested on cogent material including the jeep driver and home-guard witnesses, the escape story was make-believe, and dismissal was not disproportionate where NDPS/s.302 IPC accused were let off. It dismissed both writ petitions with no order as to costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Police officials in whose custody the accused persons are taken to Courts cannot be allowed any sympathy or leniency in such matters if such a grave charge is proved against them.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/193103/satvir-singh-godara-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Sadulshahar Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-05-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2010) 3 RLW 2777', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/193103/satvir-singh-godara-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writs verified; dismissal of two constables for colluding in escape of accused from custody upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0029)

## Gangdhar Police Station House Officer and others vs State of Rajasthan (CW-2010-0006)

**Record:** CW-2010-0006 (compiler id CWC-0319); case RAJAST-001; aliases: CWC-0533
**Title:** Gangdhar Police Station House Officer and others vs State of Rajasthan
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: Narendra Kumar Jain; Meena V. Gomber
**Case number / citation:** D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 121/2004
**Judgment:** 2010-08-05 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-05-06 (1999)
**Place:** Jhalawar, Rajasthan; city town: Gangdhar; police station or unit: Gangdhar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 331; IPC 348; IPC 201; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Gangdhar Police Station; Constable, Gangdhar Police Station; Constable, Gangdhar Police Station; Constable, Gangdhar Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Gangdhar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of SHO and Constables, \[name withheld\], and \[name withheld\] of Gangdhar Police Station for the custodial death of a Gangdhar man The deceased had been illegally detained for interrogation on 5 May 1999 and was tortured to death in police custody on the night of 6-7 May 1999, after which the police personnel transported the body in a police vehicle and burned it to destroy evidence. Affirming the judgment of the Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Jhalawar, the High Court held that the prosecution had conclusively established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence proving the offences under Sections 302, 331, 348, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Later proceedings: on 27 April 2016, the Supreme Court of India acquitted \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\] of all charges on appeal; the convictions recorded in this judgment therefore do not stand. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For the foregoing reasons, and in the light of principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and order passed by learned Trial Court, hence we concur with the findings arrived at by learned Sessions Judge and uphold the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants as mentioned hereinabove.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/751582/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1094335/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257706/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 103
**display title redacted:** Gangdhar Police Station House Officer and others vs State of Rajasthan
**final outcome url:** https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178967533/
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 121/2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2010-08-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 121/2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2016-04-27', 'action_type': 'Acquitted on appeal', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'Later proceedings: on 27 April 2016, the Supreme Court of India acquitted \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\] of all charges on appeal; the convictions recorded in this judgment therefore do not stand.', 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Conviction not standing', 'source': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178967533/', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2016-04-27', 'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178967533/', 'outcome': 'acquitted_on_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/751582/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1094335/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257706/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** overturned
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rajasthan High Court upheld conviction and life imprisonment of SHO and three constables for custodial torture and murder of a Gangdhar man
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0006)

## Central Bureau of Investigation vs Kishore Singh and Others (CW-2010-0010)

**Record:** CW-2010-0010 (compiler id CWC-0490); case SWCUSTOD-008; aliases: CWC-1442
**Title:** Central Bureau of Investigation vs Kishore Singh and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: T.S. Thakur; Markandey Katju
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 2047-2049 of 2010 / (2011) 6 SCC 369
**Judgment:** 2010-10-25 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-02-02 (1994)
**Place:** Barmer, Rajasthan; city town: Barmer; police station or unit: Sadar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** IPC 326; IPC 342; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Kishore Singh (Constable); Sumer Dan (Assistant Sub-Inspector); Sohan Singh (SHO) (3 in record)
**Victims:** Barmer man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 5 yrs; Rs 1.1 lakh (Rs 1,10,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. A Barmer man, a liquor-shop employee, was locked up at Sadar Police Station from 2 to 5 February 1994 without production before a Magistrate, beaten, and on 5 February 1994 his penis was chopped off with a razor inside the station. The trial court convicted all three policemen but the Rajasthan High Court acquitted the SHO and ASI and reduced the constable's sentence. The Supreme Court allowed the CBI appeals, set aside both acquittals, and held policemen who commit such crimes deserve harsher punishment than others. It sentenced constable Kishore Singh to 5 years RI under Section 326 with Rs 50,000 fine, ASI Sumer Dan to 3 years RI under Section 326/120B with Rs 50,000 fine, and SHO Sohan Singh to 6 months SI under Section 342 with Rs 10,000 fine, directing all fines to be paid to the victim as compensation. This Supreme Court judgment set aside the acquittals recorded in the High Court judgment covered by a companion record of this dataset; the final status of the accused police personnel under this judgment is convicted. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In our opinion, policemen who commit criminal acts deserve harsher punishment than other persons who commit such acts, because it is the duty of the policemen to protect the people, and not break the law themselves.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1473938/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/905397/central-bureau-investigation-c-b-vs-kishore-singh); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/665692/central-bureau-of-investigation-appellant-hash-kishore-singh-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 31
**display title redacted:** Central Bureau of Investigation vs Kishore Singh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-10-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2011) 6 SCC 369', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1473938/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/905397/central-bureau-investigation-c-b-vs-kishore-singh', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/665692/central-bureau-of-investigation-appellant-hash-kishore-singh-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** CBI appeals allowed; acquittals set aside, 5y/3y RI with fines to victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-2010-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0010)

## Alwar Police Head Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others (CW-2010-0038)

**Record:** CW-2010-0038 (compiler id CWC-0898); case GAP2-54-001
**Title:** Alwar Police Head Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: Arun Mishra; Dalip Singh
**Case number / citation:** Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 328 of 2010 / (2010) 11 RAJ CK 0135
**Judgment:** 2010-11-22 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-10-07 (1997)
**Place:** Alwar, Rajasthan; police station or unit: Alwar district police; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Alwar district police, Rajasthan (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Head Constable was trapped on 07.10.1997 and convicted by the trial court under PC Act 1988 ss.13(1)(d)/13(2), sentenced to two years RI with Rs.5,000 fine; his criminal appeal (No.240/2001) remained pending with only the sentence suspended. After repeated suspension-reinstatement cycles the SP Alwar removed him on 08.03.2010 on the ground of conviction, and the Single Bench dismissed his writ on 19.04.2010. The Division Bench held the corruption conviction renders the appellant totally unfit to continue in service, the pending appeal was of no avail since the conviction was not stayed, and prior hearing would have been an empty formality. It held the removal appropriate and lawful and dismissed the special appeal.

> The conviction in such a case renders the Appellant totally unfit to continue in service.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/220024/ummedi-lal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Alwar Police Head Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-11-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2010) 11 RAJ CK 0135', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/220024/ummedi-lal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Special appeal verified; removal of PC Act-convicted head constable upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0038)

## Rajasthan Man vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (CW-2012-0008)

**Record:** CW-2012-0008 (compiler id CWC-0630); case WEST---CENTRAL-002
**Title:** Rajasthan Man vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: Arun Mishra; Narendra Kumar Jain-I
**Case number / citation:** D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1034/2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5301/2005
**Judgment:** 2012-05-21 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-05-16 (2005)
**Place:** Rajasthan; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 148; IPC 323
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rajasthan man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. A Rajasthan man had surrendered on 9 September 1985 and was acquitted on 6 March 1992, but the 1985 arrest warrant was never recalled. The court found that police arrested him on 16 May 2005 on that dead warrant, kept him overnight at the police station despite his protest, and he secured bail only on 19 May 2005. The Division Bench held the arrest grossly negligent and illegal, set aside the Single Bench order denying relief, and awarded Rs 25,000 compensation with 6% interest on default. It also directed the DGP, Rajasthan to review dead warrants and order yearly reviews. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is case of illegal detention of the appellant in execution of warrant of arrest, which ceased to be effective way back in the year 1985.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5835780/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=812102068200&title=rishi-raj-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Rajasthan Man vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-05-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1034/2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5301/2005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5835780/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=812102068200&title=rishi-raj-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; arrest on dead 1985 warrant 13 years after acquittal held illegal, Rs 25,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0008)

## Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (CW-2013-0006)

**Record:** CW-2013-0006 (compiler id CWC-0329); case RAJAST-004
**Title:** Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jodhpur; judges: Govind Mathur
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2287/2013
**Judgment:** 2013-04-22 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Rajasthan; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition of Sub-Inspector, upholding his dismissal under Rule 19(i) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, imposed on the ground of his trial-court conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner contended that his criminal appeal was pending and sentence suspended, so the conviction had not attained finality. The Court held that a trial-court conviction remains final until altered in appeal and that suspension of sentence does not suspend the conviction, so the disciplinary authority was competent to dismiss him for the conduct leading to the conviction. The two-page order states neither his posting nor the underlying bribe facts. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case admittedly the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as such, it is only his conduct that led to his dismissal.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16374001/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-04-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2287/2013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16374001/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ and upheld Rule 19(i) dismissal of SI on PC Act conviction, holding pending appeal and suspended sentence do not suspend conviction.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0006)

## Rajasthan Police Constable (Driver) No. 824 vs State of Rajasthan and Others (CW-2013-0040)

**Record:** CW-2013-0040 (compiler id CWC-1088); case GAP3-121-006
**Title:** Rajasthan Police Constable (Driver) No. 824 vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; judges: Amitava Roy; P. K. Lohra
**Case number / citation:** D.B. Civil Writ Review Petition No. 213/2011 (arising from D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 792/2011)
**Judgment:** 2013-12-11 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-02-18 (2009)
**Place:** Pratapgarh, Rajasthan; city town: Pratapgarh; police station or unit: Police Line Pratapgarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 16
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (Driver) No. 824, Rajasthan Police, Police Line Pratapgarh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable (Driver) \[name withheld\], deputed on 18 February 2009 to escort arrested accused from Pratapgarh to Nimbahera court in government vehicle RJ-09-S-4326, was charged with abandoning the escort party and accused, driving the vehicle away, and consuming liquor inside it until unfit to drive. The court record notes he was photographed half-lying in the vehicle, the photo was published in Rajasthan Patrika on 19 February 2009, and a government-hospital medical examination confirmed alcohol influence. The Division Bench had dismissed his special appeal on 29 June 2011 holding his own statement plus the doctor evidence proved on-duty liquor consumption; the reviewing Division Bench on 11 December 2013 reproduced those findings and dismissed the review, leaving the dismissal from service intact.

> Vis-a-vis the plea that his past conduct could not have been taken into consideration for determining the penalty, the Co-ordinate Bench held that even dehors the same, the misconduct proved against him on the charges leveled was adequate enough to warrant his dismissal from service, more particularly in view of the fact that he at all relevant times was a member of the disciplined force.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186307814/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/222385/samunder-singh-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** Rajasthan Police Constable (Driver) No. 824 vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-12-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'D.B. Civil Writ Review Petition No. 213/2011 (arising from D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 792/2011)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186307814/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/222385/samunder-singh-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Review judgment verified; DB dismissal-upheld findings reproduced verbatim though DB text unreported.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0040)

## Asgar Ali vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (with Idan vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (CW-2014-0012)

**Record:** CW-2014-0012 (compiler id CWC-0331); case RAJAST-006
**Title:** Asgar Ali vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (with Idan vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jodhpur; judges: Sunil Ambwani; Prakash Gupta
**Case number / citation:** D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 253/2006 with No. 12/2005
**Judgment:** 2014-12-11 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1975-06-28 (1975)
**Place:** Pali, Rajasthan; city town: Desuri; police station or unit: Desuri Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Asgar Ali (Constable); Idan (Sub-Inspector) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed the special appeals of Sub-Inspector Idan and Constable Asgar Ali of Desuri Police Station, Pali, sustaining their 1978 dismissals after a Rule 16 departmental enquiry. On 28 June 1975 the officers seized 15 kg of contraband opium from five persons but, instead of recording the search, seizure and detention in police records, misappropriated the opium, released the accused and disposed of the contraband for illegal consideration, with the constable abandoning duty to assist. The Court held the departmental findings on non-recording could not be faulted and could not be displaced by a criminal acquittal secured about 18 years later on minor contradictions, applying the differing standards of proof in departmental and criminal proceedings. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The findings in this regard in the departmental proceedings, cannot be faulted, nor its effect cannot be taken away on the findings recorded in a criminal case, after a period of about 18 years, in which on minor contradictions and inconsistencies, the statements of witnesses for prosecution were disbelieved by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53653387/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e3c94a93261a672ba9aa)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 30
**display title redacted:** Asgar Ali vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (with Idan vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-12-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 253/2006 with No. 12/2005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53653387/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e3c94a93261a672ba9aa', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rajasthan High Court Division Bench dismissed special appeals and sustained dismissal of SI Idan and Constable Asgar Ali for misappropriating 15 kg seized opium and releasing the accused.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0012)

## Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others (CW-2015-0027)

**Record:** CW-2015-0027 (compiler id CWC-0902); case GAP2-55-001
**Title:** Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: Anupinder Singh Grewal
**Case number / citation:** Civil Writ Petition No. 6189 of 1998 / (2015) 07 RAJ CK 0195
**Judgment:** 2015-07-08 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-09-14 (1989)
**Place:** Rajasthan; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Rajasthan Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

\[name withheld\], a Rajasthan Police constable appointed in 1981, was charge-sheeted for unauthorised absence from duty from 14 September 1989 to 15 March 1991 and dismissed after enquiry on 28 December 1991; his departmental appeal and review were also rejected. He challenged the dismissal in a writ petition contending procedural lapses, illness, and disproportionate punishment. The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) held there was adequate material supporting the findings and that writ-court interference is confined to cases of no material or gross illegality. The court held that absence without leave in a disciplined force like the police must be viewed seriously, and dismissed the petition, upholding the dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Tested in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, the dismissal of the petitioner, who was a Police Constable and had been absent without leave for a period of 547 days, cannot in any manner be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/227056/gopi-chand-yadav-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=815102789100&title=gopi-chand-yadav-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-07-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2015) 07 RAJ CK 0195', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/227056/gopi-chand-yadav-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=815102789100&title=gopi-chand-yadav-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rajasthan HC judgment verified on primary source; dismissal of police constable for 547-day absence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0027)

## Aslam Bux vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (CW-2017-0003)

**Record:** CW-2017-0003 (compiler id CWC-0328); case RAJAST-003
**Title:** Aslam Bux vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jodhpur; judges: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4993/2005
**Judgment:** 2017-01-24 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-01-01 (1999)
**Place:** Udaipur, Rajasthan; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 366; IPC 368; IPC 372; IPC 373; IPC 376(g)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Aslam Bux (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Udaipur woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition of Constable Aslam Bux, upholding his dismissal from service by the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, following a departmental enquiry into seven charges arising from FIR No. 03/1999 under Sections 366, 368, 372, 373 and 376(g) IPC for raping the prosecutrix and selling her to another person. Although the Fast Track Court at Pali had acquitted him in the criminal trial on benefit of doubt, the High Court held that the prosecutrix had deposed afresh before the enquiry officer asserting the rape and sale, so the departmental finding of guilt stood independent of the criminal acquittal. The Court held the enquiry fair and lawful, with full opportunity to cross-examine, and ruled that no punishment lesser than dismissal was possible for a police constable involved in such a case. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case, the prosecutrix herself has deposed before the departmental Enquiry Officer and has given her statement asserting that petitioner had raped her and sold her to another person.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197680134/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Aslam Bux vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-01-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4993/2005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197680134/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ and upheld dismissal of Constable Aslam Bux for rape and sale of prosecutrix, holding departmental guilt independent of criminal acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0003)

## Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others (CW-2018-0022)

**Record:** CW-2018-0022 (compiler id CWC-1089); case GAP3-124-001
**Title:** Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; judges: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 521/2009
**Judgment:** 2018-02-01 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-08-01 (2002)
**Place:** Rajsamand, Rajasthan; city town: Deogarh; police station or unit: Deogarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 120B; IPC 34; Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 16
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Rajasthan Police, Deogarh, District Rajsamand (1 in record)
**Victims:** Deogarh resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable, posted at Deogarh, proceeded on leave on 13 August 2002 and was accused during unauthorised absence of joining associates in crushing a Deogarh resident under a jeep over a land dispute and passing it off as an accident. The court recorded a criminal trial under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC ending in acquittal on 8 October 2003, followed by a six-charge departmental inquiry ending in dismissal on 11 December 2003, affirmed on appeal in 2005 and review in 2008. The court held the inquiry strictly lawful, the murder charge proved on eye-witness \[name withheld\] with corroboration, and the benefit-of-doubt acquittal no bar given differing standards of proof, and dismissed the writ. The dismissal was later set aside by a Division Bench in April 2019 but restored by the Supreme Court in October 2020. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The departmental enquiry, in this case, includes consideration of the evidence given by Jodh Singh, Hamer Singh, \[name withheld\], Shanker Singh etc. In the departmental enquiry, the authority has categorically found that Jodh Singh has given the evidence as an eye witness and has supported the complete allegations.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181864053/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-upholds-dismissal-of-police-constable-acquitted-in-a-murder-case-165156)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-02-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 521/2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181864053/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-upholds-dismissal-of-police-constable-acquitted-in-a-murder-case-165156', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SB judgment verified; dismissal for off-duty murder upheld (later DB reversal itself reversed by SC).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0022)

## Laxmangarh Police Constable No. 728, C-Company vs State of Rajasthan and Others (CW-2018-0023)

**Record:** CW-2018-0023 (compiler id CWC-1090); case GAP3-124-002
**Title:** Laxmangarh Police Constable No. 728, C-Company vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: Ashok Kumar Gaur
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writs No. 10453/2018
**Judgment:** 2018-05-15 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-04-02 (1995)
**Place:** Sikar, Rajasthan; city town: Laxmangarh; police station or unit: 11th Battalion RAC (IR), Vazirabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 16; Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 30
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable No. 728, C-Company, 11th Battalion RAC (IR), Vazirabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable of the 11th Battalion RAC (IR) was charge-sheeted in March 2017 for securing appointment on 2 April 1995 with a forged Class-8 transfer certificate and drawing salary since, causing loss to the exchequer. The court recorded that he was given documents, reminders and a personal hearing but showed total indifference and produced nothing to prove the certificate genuine. The disciplinary authority dismissed him in December 2017 and the appellate authority rejected his appeal in March 2018 after Rule 30 compliance. The court found no irregularity or illegality in either order and dismissed the writ for lack of merit. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17787134/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Laxmangarh Police Constable No. 728, C-Company vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-05-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'S.B. Civil Writs No. 10453/2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17787134/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified; RAC constable dismissal for forged appointment certificate upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0023)

## State of Rajasthan and Others vs Jaipur Police Constable (CW-2018-0019)

**Record:** CW-2018-0019 (compiler id CWC-0727); case GAP13-003
**Title:** State of Rajasthan and Others vs Jaipur Police Constable
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: Munishwar Nath Bhandari; Dinesh Chandra Somani
**Case number / citation:** D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 637/2018
**Judgment:** 2018-07-17 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jaipur, Rajasthan; city town: Jaipur; police station or unit: Police Lines, Jaipur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Lines, Jaipur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable, posted as Cycle Sawar, was charge-sheeted for long unauthorised absence while drawing salary, having reported neither at the Police Line nor at the DGP's residence for nearly a year yet managing attendance entries. A disciplinary enquiry found the charges proved and he was dismissed; a Single Judge quashed the dismissal as unproved and the enquiry defective. The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge on proof, holding the department proved the absence with managed attendance, but held dismissal shockingly disproportionate for a first absence-only misconduct and substituted compulsory retirement with retiral benefits. No civilian victim is involved. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Accordingly, we substitute the order of punishment of dismissal from service with that of compulsory retirement.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82277252/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** State of Rajasthan and Others vs Jaipur Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-07-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 637/2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82277252/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB judgment verified; misconduct upheld, dismissal cut to compulsory retirement (no civilian victim).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0019)

## D. vs State of Rajasthan (CW-2019-0026)

**Record:** CW-2019-0026 (compiler id CWC-0904); case GAP2-56-002
**Title:** D. vs State of Rajasthan
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jodhpur; judges: Sandeep Mehta; Vinit Kumar Mathur
**Case number / citation:** D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 27/2019
**Judgment:** 2019-04-15 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2016-05-16 (2016)
**Place:** Pratapgarh, Rajasthan; city town: Suhagpura; police station or unit: Suhagpura Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; JJ Act 2015 s.10; JJ Act 2015 s.15; JJ Act 2015 s.19(3); JJ Act 2015 s.49; JJ Act 2015 s.107(2); JJ Model Rules 2016 r.86(5); Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, Police Station Suhagpura, Pratapgarh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Suhagpura girl, age 17 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

a 17-year-old girl, aged about 17, was arrested in FIR 51/2016 at Suhagpura (Pratapgarh) for killing her husband, transferred by the Juvenile for trial as an adult, convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Sessions Judge, and lodged in adult prison for nearly three years. The entire investigation was conducted by SHO with no Special Juvenile Police Unit officer and no woman police personnel associated, contrary to the JJ Act mandate. The Rajasthan High Court Division Bench held the Section 15 transfer, the investigation, and the incarceration in adult jail patently illegal and acquitted her. The court held the irregular investigation and unwarranted imprisonment grossly violated her fundamental rights and directed the State to pay Rs 2,00,000 compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As per Rule 86(5) of the Model Rules, it is a mandate of law that for dealing with the girl child, woman police personnel shall be engaged. However, on a perusal of the entire record, it is clear that neither was the case handled by the Special Juvenile Police Units nor any woman police personnel was ever associated for dealing with the case of the child appellant.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52890859/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5de53e9246571b2fd68a361e)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** D. vs State of Rajasthan
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-04-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 27/2019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52890859/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5de53e9246571b2fd68a361e', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; police investigation held patently irregular, acquittal plus compensation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 17, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a 17-year-old girl'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0026)

## State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Heem Singh (CW-2020-0008)

**Record:** CW-2020-0008 (compiler id CWC-0323); case RAJAST-005; aliases: CWC-1444
**Title:** State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Heem Singh
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: D.Y. Chandrachud; Indu Malhotra; Indira Banerjee
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 3340 of 2020 / AIRONLINE 2020 SC 795
**Judgment:** 2020-10-29 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-08-15 (2002)
**Place:** Rajsamand, Rajasthan; city town: Khamnaur; police station or unit: Rajasthan Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 142; Constitution of India Art. 226; IPC 302; IPC 120B; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Heem Singh (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Khamnaur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court set aside a Rajasthan High Court Division Bench order that had directed reinstatement of Constable Heem Singh, who was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry found him complicit in a conspiracy to murder a Khamnaur man in August 2002. Although Heem Singh had been acquitted in the criminal trial due to witnesses turning hostile, the Supreme Court ruled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically vitiate disciplinary findings governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Observing that retaining an officer found culpable of serious misconduct would undermine public confidence in the police, the Court restored the disciplinary penalty of dismissal, granting only notional minimum qualifying service under Article 142 to facilitate retiral dues without back wages. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> True, even on the more relaxed standard which governs a disciplinary enquiry, evidence of the involvement of the respondent in a conspiracy involving the death of a Khamnaur man would be difficult to prove. But there are, as we have seen earlier, circumstances emerging from the record of the disciplinary proceedings which bring legitimacy to the contention of the State that to reinstate such an employee back in service will erode the credibility of and public confidence in the image of the police force.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173130822/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-upholds-dismissal-of-police-constable-acquitted-in-a-murder-case-165156); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/10/30/police-constable-acquitted-in-a-murder-case-but-dismissed-from-service-after-a-related-disciplinary-enquiry-read-why-sc-upheld-the-dismissal/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 35
**display title redacted:** State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Heem Singh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-10-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2020 SC 795', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173130822/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-upholds-dismissal-of-police-constable-acquitted-in-a-murder-case-165156', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/10/30/police-constable-acquitted-in-a-murder-case-but-dismissed-from-service-after-a-related-disciplinary-enquiry-read-why-sc-upheld-the-dismissal/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court upheld disciplinary dismissal of Constable Heem Singh for murder conspiracy, holding criminal acquittal did not preclude departmental dismissal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2020-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0008)

## Ram Karan vs State of Rajasthan (CW-2022-0015)

**Record:** CW-2022-0015 (compiler id CWC-0325); case RAJAST-007
**Title:** Ram Karan vs State of Rajasthan
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 478/1986
**Judgment:** 2022-07-25 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1982-10-11 (1982)
**Place:** Tonk, Rajasthan; city town: Aligarh; police station or unit: Aligarh Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d); PC Act 1947 s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ram Karan (Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Aligarh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal and upheld the conviction of former SHO-Inspector Ram Karan of Aligarh Police Station, Tonk, under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Ram Karan had threatened complainant \[name withheld\] with criminal prosecution under Section 182 IPC over an alleged false abduction complaint unless paid a bribe of Rs. 200, which was seized during an Anti-Corruption Department trap. Despite the officer passing away during the 36-year appeal pendency and his legal representatives continuing the appeal, the High Court held demand and acceptance firmly established and affirmed his conviction and concurrent one-year sentence.

> I am of the considered opinion that the judgment and order of the learned trial court does not suffer from infirmity and illegality. The appeal devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34724178/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Ram Karan vs State of Rajasthan
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 478/1986', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2022-07-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 478/1986', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34724178/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rajasthan High Court dismissed appeal and upheld the PC Act conviction and 1-year sentence of Sub-Inspector Ram Karan for demanding a Rs. 200 bribe.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0015)

## The State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Phool Singh (CW-2022-0018)

**Record:** CW-2022-0018 (compiler id CWC-0324); case SUPREM-024
**Title:** The State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Phool Singh
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. Ravindra Bhat; Sudhanshu Dhulia
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 5930 of 2022 / 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 735
**Judgment:** 2022-09-02 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-10-15 (1987)
**Place:** Dholpur, Rajasthan; city town: Mania; police station or unit: Mania Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 392; Arms Act 1959 s.3; Arms Act 1959 s.25
**Officers (gated display forms):** Phool Singh (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mania man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court set aside judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) that had quashed the disciplinary dismissal of Constable Phool Singh of Mania Police Station, Dholpur. On 15 October 1987, while off-duty but dressed in uniform, Phool Singh accosted motorcyclist Mahesh Kumar, demanded Rs. 100, seized his vehicle upon non-payment, and waved an illegal firearm at a gathering crowd before discharging it. Although an appellate court later acquitted him under Section 392 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act on the ground of benefit of doubt, the Supreme Court ruled that a benefit-of-doubt acquittal is not an honourable acquittal and cannot invalidate departmental proceedings, thereby confirming his dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, in the present case the acquittal of the respondent is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a “benefit of doubt”. Under these circumstances and in view of the position of law as stated above, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 29.01.2014 of the learned Single Judge and the order dated 09.09.2020 of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench are hereby set aside.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91078594/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-employee-disciplinary-proceedings-criminal-case-acquittal-state-of-rajasthan-vs-phool-singh-2022-livelaw-sc-735-208343)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** The State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Phool Singh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-09-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 735', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91078594/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-employee-disciplinary-proceedings-criminal-case-acquittal-state-of-rajasthan-vs-phool-singh-2022-livelaw-sc-735-208343', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court set aside Rajasthan High Court orders and upheld the disciplinary dismissal of Constable Phool Singh for extortion and brandishing an illegal firearm.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0018)

## Bahadur Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (CW-2023-0014)

**Record:** CW-2023-0014 (compiler id CWC-0326); case RAJAST-008
**Title:** Bahadur Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: Anoop Kumar Dhand
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13411/2011 / 2023/RJJP/007400
**Judgment:** 2023-05-03 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-01-18 (2002)
**Place:** Tonk, Rajasthan; city town: Todaraisingh; police station or unit: Sadar Police Station, Tonk; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 365; IPC 342; IPC 327; IPC 323; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Bahadur Singh (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Todaraisingh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the legal heirs of deceased Constable Bahadur Singh of Sadar Police Station, Tonk, upholding his compulsory retirement for serious misconduct. On 18 January 2002, while unauthorizedly absent from duty, Bahadur Singh and four accomplices abducted a Todaraisingh man, assaulted him, and forcibly obtained his signatures on stamp paper, leading to registration of FIR No. 14/2002 under Sections 365, 342, 327, 323, and 120-B IPC and subsequent departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. Rejecting the claim that his later acquittal by a criminal court vitiated departmental action, the High Court held that the inquiry findings were based on credible evidence and the penalty of compulsory retirement was commensurate with the misconduct. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The department has led credible evidence to show that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are neither perverse nor based on 'no evidence'.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117852468/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-petition-police-constable-compulsory-retirement-departmental-enquiry-231468)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Bahadur Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-05-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2023/RJJP/007400', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117852468/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-petition-police-constable-compulsory-retirement-departmental-enquiry-231468', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ petition and upheld compulsory retirement of Constable Bahadur Singh for abducting and assaulting a civilian to extort signatures on stamp paper.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0014)

## New Delhi Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others (CW-2023-0053)

**Record:** CW-2023-0053 (compiler id CWC-1091); case GAP3-125-001
**Title:** New Delhi Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: Ashok Kumar Gaur
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18980/2017 / \[2023:RJ-JP:23836\]; 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1949
**Judgment:** 2023-09-20 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-09-14 (2007)
**Place:** Rajasthan; city town: New Delhi; police station or unit: 12th Battalion RAC (IR), Chanakyapuri, New Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 Rule 16; Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 Rule 4(iv)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, 12th Battalion RAC (IR), C Company, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Constable of the 12th Battalion RAC (IR) at Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, was charge-sheeted in September 2007 for indiscipline and leading an immoral life, namely maintaining an illicit relationship despite being married with children and neglecting his family. The court recorded that he did not appear before the inquiry officer, filed no response to the inquiry report, was dismissed in March 2008, and his departmental appeal and review were rejected in 2009 and 2017. The court held codified conduct rules barring an immoral life cannot be tested against mythology or foreign custom, found no infirmity in the inquiry or dismissal, and dismissed the writ. An intra-court appeal (D.B. SAW/916/2023) is noted on the judgment memo. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court finds that the Authorities have not committed an error in initiating the enquiry against the petitioner and passing the order by imposing punishment of dismissal from service.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122829080/); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/09/27/rajasthan-hc-government-servant-uphold-high-conduct-of-rules-private-and-public-life-legal-news/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 96
**display title redacted:** New Delhi Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-09-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '\[2023:RJ-JP:23836\]; 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1949', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122829080/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/09/27/rajasthan-hc-government-servant-uphold-high-conduct-of-rules-private-and-public-life-legal-news/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified; RAC constable dismissal for conduct-rule misconduct upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0053](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0053)

## Jaipur Man v. State of Rajasthan (CW-2023-0027)

**Record:** CW-2023-0027 (compiler id CWC-0580); case SWFALSEI-011
**Title:** Jaipur Man v. State of Rajasthan
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: Pankaj Bhandari; Bhuwan Goyal
**Case number / citation:** D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 596/2016 / 2023:RJ-JP:22328-DB
**Judgment:** 2023-09-29 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-05-13 (2011)
**Place:** Jaipur, Rajasthan; city town: Jaipur; police station or unit: Police Station Galta Gate (FIR 137/2011); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 498A; IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Galta Gate, Jaipur; Police personnel, Jaipur police (FIR 137/2011) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Jaipur man, age 32 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25 lakh (Rs 25,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. A Jaipur man was convicted for murdering his wife \[name withheld\], who self-immolated on 13 May 2011, and sentenced to life plus 3 years under ss.302/498-A IPC, spending over 12 years in jail. The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur) held the suicide proved and the parchabayan concocted by SI in violation of Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules: recorded in five minutes on 95% burns by a non-gazetted officer without independent witnesses, with the fitness doctor unexamined and the Magistrate approached only after death. It held the entire proceedings were initiated just to falsely implicate the husband, allowed the appeal, acquitted him, and awarded Rs.25,00,000 compensation for wrongful prosecution and the Article 21 violation.

> Thus, the entire proceedings have been initiated against the accused just to falsely implicate him.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92846988/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-acquits-wrongly-convicted-wife-murder-state-25-lakhs-compensation-malicious-prosecution-239231)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Jaipur Man v. State of Rajasthan
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-09-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023:RJ-JP:22328-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92846988/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-acquits-wrongly-convicted-wife-murder-state-25-lakhs-compensation-malicious-prosecution-239231', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rajasthan HC held suicide proved and husband falsely implicated; acquittal + Rs.25L compensation confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0027)

## Nand Kishore vs State of Rajasthan (CW-2024-0002)

**Record:** CW-2024-0002 (compiler id CWC-0320); case RAJAST-002
**Title:** Nand Kishore vs State of Rajasthan
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 180/1988 / 2024:RJ-JP:12210
**Judgment:** 2024-03-11 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-03-02 (1983)
**Place:** Kota, Rajasthan; city town: Kota; police station or unit: Traffic Police, Kota; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d); PC Act 1947 s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Nand Kishore (Head Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kota man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** fine
**Sentence type:** fine (fine)

The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court maintained the conviction of Head Constable Nand Kishore of the Kota Traffic Police under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for demanding and accepting a Rs. 10 bribe from an auto-rickshaw driver in March 1983. Affirming the findings of the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Kota, the High Court held the conviction intact but set aside the substantive sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment in view of the appellant being 72 years old and enduring 41 years of criminal proceedings for a petty bribe. The Court substituted the custodial term with an enhanced fine of Rs. 2,000 on each count. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 30.04.1988, the substantive sentence awarded to him under Section 161 IPC as also under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 is set aside.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20606909/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Nand Kishore vs State of Rajasthan
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Rajasthan High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2024:RJ-JP:12210', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-03-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2024:RJ-JP:12210', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20606909/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rajasthan High Court maintained PC Act conviction of Traffic Head Constable Nand Kishore for demanding Rs. 10 bribe, modifying sentence to enhanced fine due to 41-year pendency.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0002)

## Central Reserve Police Constable No. 850856896 v. Union of India and Others (CW-2025-0036)

**Record:** CW-2025-0036 (compiler id CWC-1092); case GAP3-126-002
**Title:** Central Reserve Police Constable No. 850856896 v. Union of India and Others
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jaipur; judges: Anoop Kumar Dhand
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4181/2001 / 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 93
**Judgment:** 2025-02-19 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-10-04 (1999)
**Place:** Dausa, Rajasthan; city town: Bandikui; police station or unit: B/19 Battalion CRPF, Barpeta Road; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable No. 850856896, B/19 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Barpeta Road, Assam (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. CRPF Constable, resident of Salve Kala via Bandikui in Dausa, took 15 days sanctioned leave from 4 October 1999, overstayed about 65 days without intimation while false information of his death was sent to the authorities, and rejoined on 27 December 1999. The court recorded dismissal from service on 28 August 2000 after departmental inquiry and rejection of his appeal on 27 December 2000, challenged by a 2001 writ. The court held wilful unauthorised absence by a member of a disciplined force is the gravest misconduct, distinguished the cited precedents on facts, and dismissed the writ, leaving the dismissal intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Looking to the fact that the petitioner remained willfully absent from duty on unauthorized leaves without sending any intimation to the respondents authorities and looking to the fact that an incorrect information was sent at his instance that he has passed away, such an act of the petitioner amount to gross misconduct. The petitioner has failed to maintain devotion towards his duty and being a member of the disciplined force, such indiscipline on the part of the petitioner cannot be tolerated.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/20520004181200111-590138.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-upholds-crpf-constable-dismissal-absence-from-duty-285905)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Central Reserve Police Constable No. 850856896 v. Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-02-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 93', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/20520004181200111-590138.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-upholds-crpf-constable-dismissal-absence-from-duty-285905', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** LiveLaw-hosted judgment and report verify CRPF dismissal for absence and false death report upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0036)

## Taranagar Man vs State of Rajasthan (CW-2025-0043)

**Record:** CW-2025-0043 (compiler id CWC-0903); case GAP2-56-001
**Title:** Taranagar Man vs State of Rajasthan
**Court:** Rajasthan High Court; bench: Jodhpur; judges: Manoj Kumar Garg
**Case number / citation:** S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 839/2025 / 2025:RJ-JD:30277
**Judgment:** 2025-07-11 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-03-14 (2025)
**Place:** Churu, Rajasthan; city town: Taranagar; police station or unit: Taranagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** BNS 115(2); BNS 140(3); BNS 189(2); BNS 110; BNS 117(2); BNS 127(2); BNS 126(2); BNS 140(4); BNS 191(3); BNS 191(2); BNS 190; BNSS 189
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, Taranagar Police Station, Churu; Investigating Officer, Taranagar Police Station, Churu (2 in record)
**Victims:** Taranagar man, age 29 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. A Taranagar man, a resident of Bheemsana (Churu) who the court notes appears to be a visually impaired person, was chargesheeted in FIR 63/2025 at Taranagar for abduction and assault though the written report named Ramniwas, Sonu, Pratap etc., and was lodged in Central Jail Churu. On his brother's plea the SP Churu assigned re-investigation to a trainee IPS officer, who found him falsely implicated, but the Sessions Court rejected the IO's Section 189 BNSS release application on technical grounds. The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur) set aside that order and directed his release on a Rs 10,000 bond. The court recorded that law-enforcement officials had deliberately and maliciously implicated an innocent person to shield the actual perpetrators, directed a departmental inquiry against the erring SHO and IO, and ordered Rs 2,00,000 compensation conditional on medical confirmation of the visual impairment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Station House Officer and the Investigating Officer cannot be absolved of responsibility for their role in falsely implicating the petitioner, ostensibly to shield the actual perpetrators.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38132813/); [bhaskarenglish.in](https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/local/rajasthan/jodhpur/news/rajasthan-high-court-frees-blind-man-framed-in-false-kidnapping-case-orders-compensation-and-probe-against-police-officials-135436325.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Taranagar Man vs State of Rajasthan
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-07-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Rajasthan High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Rajasthan High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2025:RJ-JD:30277', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38132813/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/local/rajasthan/jodhpur/news/rajasthan-high-court-frees-blind-man-framed-in-false-kidnapping-case-orders-compensation-and-probe-against-police-officials-135436325.html', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; deliberate false implication found, release plus conditional compensation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0043](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0043)

## The State of Madras vs Madras State Police Inspector of Police (CW-1964-0004)

**Record:** CW-1964-0004 (compiler id CWC-1094); case GAP3-127-002
**Title:** The State of Madras vs Madras State Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: P. B. Gajendragadkar; Raghubar Dayal; M. Hidayatullah; K. N. Wanchoo; J. R. Mudholkar
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 400 of 1964 / AIR 1965 SC 1103
**Judgment:** 1964-10-09 (1964, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1951-08-30 (1951)
**Place:** Tirupathur, Tamil Nadu (district at time: North Arcot); city town: Vaniyambadi; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Madras District Police Act 1859 s.10; Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 311; Madras Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules 1948
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Madras State Police, Vaniyambadi (1 in record)
**Victims:** Vaniyambadi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 9 October 1964 allowed the State appeal and restored the compulsory retirement of Inspector of the Madras State Police. The Court recorded that he demanded Rs. 1,000 from a Vaniyambadi man under threat of a perjury prosecution and received Rs. 750 at his Vaniyambadi house on 4 September 1951 in an arranged trap, besides receiving presents from subordinate officers. A Tribunal found the charges proved and recommended dismissal; the Government instead compulsorily retired him in June 1953, which the High Court quashed. The Court held the High Court under Article 226 could not sit in appeal over Tribunal findings supported by evidence, and restored the 1953 order.

> We are, therefore, of opinion that the High Court was in error in quashing the order of the State Government retiring the respondent compulsorily on the ground that the evidence during the inquiry proceedings by the Tribunal was not sufficient to establish the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Court below and restore the order of Government, dated June 25, 1953, ordering the compulsory retirement of the respondent from service.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/643602/the-state-of-madras-appellant-hash-g-sundaram-respondent/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1880253/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** The State of Madras vs Madras State Police Inspector of Police
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1964-10-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1965 SC 1103', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/643602/the-state-of-madras-appellant-hash-g-sundaram-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1880253/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC restored compulsory retirement of Inspector caught in Rs.750 bribe trap.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1964-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1964-0004)

## Keelamangalam Man vs The State (CW-1992-0010)

**Record:** CW-1992-0010 (compiler id CWC-0826); case GAP2-37-006
**Title:** Keelamangalam Man vs The State
**Court:** Madras High Court
**Case number / citation:** Crl.M.P. No. 15045 of 1989 / 1993 Cri LJ 3646
**Judgment:** 1992-02-24 (1992, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1986-12-30 (1986)
**Place:** Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Dharmapuri); city town: Keelamangalam; police station or unit: Keelamangalam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; CrPC 173
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Keelamangalam Police Station; Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District; Inspector, Dharmapuri District; Sub-Inspector, Keelamangalam Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Keelamangalam man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court disposed of the petition of a Keelamangalam man, a primary-school teacher and accused No. 11 in Crime No. 156 of 1986, who remained under interim suspension for over six years because investigating officers never filed a final report and disobeyed two earlier High Court orders. The court recorded that Inspector retained the case diary for years, SP and Inspector failed to act, and SI closed a connected case, violating the petitioner's Article 21 rights. Holding the State bound to compensate, the court awarded Rs.20,000 payable within six weeks (recoverable from erring officials), vacated the stay and directed the charge-sheet within ten days, while dropping contempt. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The State is bound to compensate the petitioner. It cannot evade its responsibility, on the ground, that the acts done by the officials were individual wrongs or misdeeds.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/524182/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18-C
**display title redacted:** Keelamangalam Man vs The State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1992-02-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 20,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1993 Cri LJ 3646', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/524182/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Petition disposed; Rs.20,000 for 6-year investigative inaction violating Article 21; charge-sheet in 10 days.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1992-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1992-0010)

## Kammapuram Man vs State of Tamil Nadu (CW-1994-0008)

**Record:** CW-1994-0008 (compiler id CWC-0827); case GAP2-37-007
**Title:** Kammapuram Man vs State of Tamil Nadu
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: Shivaraj Patil; Mishra
**Case number / citation:** H.C.P. No. 711 of 1993 / 1994 (2) LW (Crl) 680
**Judgment:** 1994-08-01 (1994, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-03-20 (1993)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu (district at time: South Arcot); city town: Kammapuram; police station or unit: Kammapuram Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 218; IPC 220; IPC 302; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Kammapuram Police Station; Constable, Kammapuram Police Station
**Victims:** Kammapuram man; Kammapuram woman; Kammapuram man, age 25; Kammapuram boy, age 13; Kammapuram man, age 55; Kammapuram resident; Kammapuram resident; Kammapuram resident; Kammapuram resident; Kammapuram girl, age 10 (10 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.6 lakh (Rs 2,60,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the habeas corpus petition of a woman, a Kurava (as stated in the judgment) daily-wage labourer, whose family was rounded up on 20 March 1993 by SI of Kammapuram police station... \[rest of summary unchanged\]. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Instead of the body of the petitioner's husband alive, brought before the court, the information received is that he has been done to death by the fourth respondent and his men.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/60879/in-the-matter-of-rajakannu-husband-of-the-petitioner-herein-r-parvathi-appellant-hash-state-of-t/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=214991431100)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Kammapuram Man vs State of Tamil Nadu
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1994-08-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 260,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1994 (2) LW (Crl) 680', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/60879/in-the-matter-of-rajakannu-husband-of-the-petitioner-herein-r-parvathi-appellant-hash-state-of-t/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=214991431100', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HCP allowed; custodial death by named SI and men; Rs.2.6 lakh scheme; CB-CID report sent for prosecution.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}; {'age': 25, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': 13, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 13-year-old boy'}; {'age': 55, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': None, 'descriptor': 'a person'}; {'age': None, 'gender': None, 'descriptor': 'a person'}; {'age': None, 'gender': None, 'descriptor': 'a person'}; {'age': None, 'gender': None, 'descriptor': 'a person'}; {'age': 10, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a 10-year-old girl'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1994-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1994-0008)

## Pudupet Man vs State of Tamil Nadu (CW-1994-0009)

**Record:** CW-1994-0009 (compiler id CWC-0825); case GAP2-37-005
**Title:** Pudupet Man vs State of Tamil Nadu
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: Mishra
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 2470 of 1984 / 1994 (2) LW (Crl) 687
**Judgment:** 1994-08-17 (1994, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1977-01-11 (1977)
**Place:** Tirupattur, Tamil Nadu (district at time: North Arcot); city town: Pudupet; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Thirupathur Taluk police, North Arcot district
**Victims:** Pudupet man, age 21 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court (Mishra, J.) allowed the writ petition of Baggiam Doraiswamy, whose 21-year-old son \[name withheld\], an automobile mechanic branded a naxalite on landlords' complaints, was produced by his own parents before the police on 25 November 1976 and killed on 11 January 1977 at Nainathiyur village near Pudupet. The court rejected the police encounter story, accepting the Sub-Collector's inquest and the Board of Revenue Member's findings that policemen brutally beat a Pudupet man after capture, concealed facts, filed a false complaint and burnt the body. Holding policemen alone responsible for the death and the criminal acquittal no bar, the court directed the State to pay Rs.1,00,000, retained and invested so as to yield the petitioner not less than Rs.1,000 per month for life. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On an independent assessment of the facts as aforementioned, which are not in controversy, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has made out a positive case of assault upon her son by the police and that policemen alone are responsible for this death.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/11808/baggiam-doraiswamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e12dc0607dba3896622c56)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Pudupet Man vs State of Tamil Nadu
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1994-08-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1994 (2) LW (Crl) 687', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/11808/baggiam-doraiswamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e12dc0607dba3896622c56', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ allowed; police alone held responsible for custodial killing; Rs.1 lakh invested for monthly maintenance.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1994-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1994-0009)

## Theni Man v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-1996-0008)

**Record:** CW-1996-0008 (compiler id CWC-0470); case SOUTH-001
**Title:** Theni Man v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: Kanakaraj
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 7925 of 1995 / 1996(2) CTC 478
**Judgment:** 1996-08-14 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-04-05 (1995)
**Place:** Theni, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Madurai); city town: Theni; police station or unit: Narcotics Intelligence Bureau office, Theni; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Narcotics Intelligence Bureau, Madras; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Narcotics Intelligence Bureau, Madras (2 in record)
**Victims:** Theni man, age 37 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Justice Kanakaraj held that a Theni man died in the custody of Narcotics Intelligence Bureau officials at Theni and awarded his widow Rs 1 lakh interim compensation (Rs 25,000 immediate, Rs 75,000 in bank deposit), adjustable against regular compensation. A Theni man was detained on 5 April 1995, taken to the NIB office at Theni, chained and tortured while relatives heard his cries. The Sub-Collector/Collector enquiry under PSO 145 rejected the police version and the Government directed prosecution of Inspector and ASI. The Court held the widow entitled to compensation without waiting for the outcome of that prosecution. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is a matter of grave violation of human rights and one should take pride in upholding the right of a citizen in this country.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1818499/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Theni Man v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-08-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1996(2) CTC 478', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1818499/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC held NIB custodial death of a Theni man; Rs 1 lakh interim compensation; prosecution of 2 officers directed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1996-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0008)

## Director General of Police and Others vs Tamil Nadu Police personnel (CW-1997-0016)

**Record:** CW-1997-0016 (compiler id CWC-1098); case GAP3-127-006
**Title:** Director General of Police and Others vs Tamil Nadu Police personnel
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: V. N. Khare; K. Venkataswami
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 4588 of 1995 / (1998) 9 SCC 490
**Judgment:** 1997-08-05 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Tamil Nadu Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 5 August 1997 set aside the Tribunal order and restored the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority against \[name withheld\] (bribe demand/acceptance charge), holding the Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence; the appellate authority's reduction to compulsory retirement does not survive the restoration of the disciplinary authority's dismissal order. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We find from the order of the disciplinary authority the charge was that the respondent had demanded and accepted the bribe, but the only discrepancy pointed out in the evidence was regarding the date, time and amount. This has been noticed by the disciplinary authority and it has given acceptable reasons for ignoring those discrepancies.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/676941/director-general-of-police-and-others-appellant-hash-r-janibasha-respondent/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1742573/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** Director General of Police and Others vs Tamil Nadu Police personnel
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-08-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1998) 9 SCC 490', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/676941/director-general-of-police-and-others-appellant-hash-r-janibasha-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1742573/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC restored compulsory retirement; Tribunal could not re-appreciate bribe evidence.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1997-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0016)

## Director General of Police and Others vs Tamil Nadu Police Police Constable (CW-1998-0007)

**Record:** CW-1998-0007 (compiler id CWC-1100); case GAP3-127-008
**Title:** Director General of Police and Others vs Tamil Nadu Police Police Constable
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. C. Agrawal; K. Venkataswami; A. P. Misra
**Case number / citation:** (1998) 2 SCC 407; AIR 1998 SC 2265
**Judgment:** 1998-01-28 (1998, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1983-05-28 (1983)
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Tirunelveli); city town: Nagercoil; police station or unit: Crime detection party, Kanyakumari District; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Crime detection party, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Nagercoil man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 28 January 1998 sustained a major penalty against constable of a Kanyakumari crime detection party for extorting 31 grams of gold jewels from jeweller a Nagercoil man under coercion on 28 May 1983, with related charges of off-record detention and misappropriation of seized property. He was dismissed in April 1987, upheld on appeal and review, but the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal set the dismissal aside on enquiry-report, competency and parity grounds. The Court rejected the first two grounds but applied parity with a co-delinquent Head Constable, substituting compulsory retirement for dismissal to meet the ends of justice. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> a punishment of compulsory retirement in the case of the respondent as well would meet the ends of justice on the facts and circumstances of this case.

**Sources (2):** [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1998/january/37.php); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/641558/director-general-police-vs-g-dasayan)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Director General of Police and Others vs Tamil Nadu Police Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1998-01-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1998) 2 SCC 407; AIR 1998 SC 2265', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1998/january/37.php', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/641558/director-general-police-vs-g-dasayan', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC sustained major penalty (compulsory retirement) for gold extortion by constable.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1998-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1998-0007)

## Vaiyampatti Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (CW-1998-0011)

**Record:** CW-1998-0011 (compiler id CWC-0824); case GAP2-37-004
**Title:** Vaiyampatti Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: P. Sathasivam
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 10 of 1990 / 1998(3) CTC 628
**Judgment:** 1998-09-09 (1998, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-12-13 (1989)
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Trichy); city town: Vaiyampatti; police station or unit: Vaiyampatti Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 340; IPC 343; IPC 321
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Crime), Manapparai; Sub-Inspector (Law & Order), Vaiyampatti Police Station; Grade I Police Constable 1682, Vaiyampatti Police Station
**Victims:** Vaiyampatti man; Vaiyampatti man (11 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,45,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court (P. Sathasivam, J.) allowed a public interest writ petition over the events of 13 December 1989 at Vaiyampatti, where a Vaiyampatti man, picked up for interrogation in a theft complaint, was found hanging from a tree inside the police station premises, and police firing on the protesting mob killed a Vaiyampatti man and injured nine others. The court held that the Vaiyampatti police officers alone were responsible for a Vaiyampatti man's custodial death, noting the Sub-Collector's enquiry and the Sessions Judge's observations. While accepting that the police firing itself was justified, the court enhanced the ex gratia relief, awarding Rs.1,00,000 to a Vaiyampatti man's widow, Rs.50,000 each to a Vaiyampatti man's parents, Rs.5,000 each to the nine injured, and Rs.1,000 costs, all payable within four weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The fact remains that the Police Officers concerned in that Police Station were alone responsible for the death of a Vaiyampatti man

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/906606/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/38215/r-nandakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-2-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Vaiyampatti Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1998-09-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 245,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1998(3) CTC 628', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/906606/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/38215/r-nandakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-2-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** PIL allowed; police held solely responsible for custodial death; Rs.2.45 lakh total compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1998-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1998-0011)

## Tiruttani Woman vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (CW-1998-0012)

**Record:** CW-1998-0012 (compiler id CWC-0823); case GAP2-37-003
**Title:** Tiruttani Woman vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: N.K. Jain
**Case number / citation:** 1999 Cri LJ 1915
**Judgment:** 1998-11-20 (1998, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-05-24 (1998)
**Place:** Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu; city town: Tiruttani; police station or unit: Pallipet Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 498A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Pallipet Police Station
**Victims:** Tiruttani man; Tiruttani man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court (N.K. Jain, J.) allowed a mother's habeas corpus petition for her two sons, a Tiruttani man and a Tiruttani man, arrested on 24 May 1998 in a Pallipet murder case (Cr. No. 216/1998) after a half-burnt body was found. The court found that even after the supposed victim \[name withheld\] was found alive at Tirupati and stated under s.164 CrPC that the detenus were not responsible, police inaction kept the brothers in the Tiruvellore sub-jail. Holding their personal liberty was deprived by the carelessness, inaction and unfair investigation of the police, the court set the detenus at liberty and directed the State to pay Rs.50,000 to each of them directly within two months. The State was left free to take action against the officers concerned. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On considering the overall facts and the legal position, we are fully convinced that this is a fit case where personal liberty of two persons, has been deprived of by the carelessness, inaction and unfair investigation of the police, which cannot be said to be bona fide even no bias has been pleaded.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1578452/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Tiruttani Woman vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1998-11-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1999 Cri LJ 1915', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1578452/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HCP allowed; Rs.50,000 each to two detenus for unfair investigation and prolonged illegal custody.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1998-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1998-0012)

## Budalur Man and Others vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-1999-0002)

**Record:** CW-1999-0002 (compiler id CWC-0374); case TAMILN-010
**Title:** Budalur Man and Others vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: P.D. Dinakaran, J.
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 1966 of 1992 / (2000) 1 LW(Cri) 96
**Judgment:** 1999-04-08 (1999, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1981-06-11 (1981)
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu; city town: Budalur; police station or unit: Budalur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 342; Constitution of India Article 21; Constitution of India Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Budalur Police Station (5 in record)
**Victims:** Budalur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court awarded Rs 5,00,000 as public law compensation to the widow and four children of a Budalur man, who died under police custody at Budalur Police Station in Thanjavur district on 11.06.1981. An enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer concluded that the deceased was killed in custody and held all five on-duty police personnel responsible. While the trial court initially acquitted them, the High Court on State appeal convicted all five police personnel under Section 342 IPC for wrongful confinement on 11.05.1991. Justice P.D. Dinakaran held that custodial death constitutes a grave infraction of Article 21 and rejected the State's plea of delay, ordering the payment of Rs 5 lakh in equal shares to the dependents alongside a recommendation for compassionate public employment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The case in hand is in no way different from the facts and circumstances of the cases of custodial deaths referred to above as admittedly it is found by this Court that the said Dorairaj died when he was in police custody.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/62038/d-ranganayagi-and-others-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Budalur Man and Others vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1999-04-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2000) 1 LW(Cri) 96', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/62038/d-ranganayagi-and-others-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation for custodial death of a Budalur man at Budalur PS, noting police were convicted under IPC 342.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1999-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1999-0002)

## Thanjavur Woman v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2000-0003)

**Record:** CW-2000-0003 (compiler id CWC-0517); case SWDISPRO-010
**Title:** Thanjavur Woman v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: Y. Venkatachalam
**Case number / citation:** 2000 Cri LJ 4459
**Judgment:** 2000-03-22 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-11-22 (1990)
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu; city town: Thanjavur; police station or unit: South Town Police Station area, Thanjavur (Cr. No. 716/1990); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Prohibition raid party, South Town Police Station area, Thanjavur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Thanjavur woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Madras High Court held the State liable for the death of a Thanjavur woman at Burmah Colony, Thanjavur, during a prohibition raid on 22 November 1990, when Police Constable 902 \[name withheld\], while dragging men into a police van and beating people at sight, rudely pushed her to the ground as she intervened for her relative the defence that she died of pre-existing heart disease, the Court held causation was for a criminal trial. Allowing the writ in part, the Court awarded Rs 2 lakh compensation within three months and directed forthwith criminal prosecution plus an expedited departmental enquiry against the constable. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Consequently the respondents herein are directed to initiate forthwith criminal proceedings against the police constable concerned for his rude behaviour in his pushing her to ground which subsequently ended in her death apart from expediting the departmental enquiry pending against him.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1897316/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Thanjavur Woman v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-03-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2000 Cri LJ 4459', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1897316/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs 2L for raid death by constable push; criminal prosecution and DE directed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2000-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0003)

## Govindan @ Govindarajan, Selvaraj & Ors. v. State rep. by R.D.O., Hosur (K. S. gang-rape case) (CW-2002-0002)

**Record:** CW-2002-0002 (compiler id CWC-0479); case SWCUSTOD-009
**Title:** Govindan @ Govindarajan, Selvaraj & Ors. v. State rep. by R.D.O., Hosur (K. S. gang-rape case)
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: M. Karpagavinayagam
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 764 and 765 of 1993 with Crl.R.C. No. 172 of 1994
**Judgment:** 2002-06-21 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1988-07-20 (1988)
**Place:** Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Dharmapuri); city town: Thalli; police station or unit: Thalli PS; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 366; IPC 376(2)(g); IPC 326; IPC 307
**Officers (gated display forms):** Balasubramanian (Inspector of Police); Govindarajan (Head Constable); Selvaraj (Writer); Govindasamy (Constable) (4 in record)
**Victims:** Thalli woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Madras High Court confirmed the convictions of the Inspector, Head Constable, Writer and Constable of Thalli PS who, in uniform and on duty, gang-raped teacher the complainant in the station store-room on 20 July 1988, beat her, dumped her in a pit and stoned her. The Court held even the 10-year minimum was insufficient for uniformed custodial gang rape and enhanced the Section 376 sentence to life imprisonment on the victim's revision. It directed the Home Secretary to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation within three months and ordered the appellants to surrender. Identification parade, bloodstains and medical evidence were held to corroborate the victim. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The uniformity in the sad episode is that while they committed gang rape inside the police station, they were in uniform and on duty.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92954057/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** Govindan @ Govindarajan, Selvaraj & Ors. v. State rep. by R.D.O., Hosur (K. S. gang-rape case)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['case_title', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 764 and 765 of 1993 with Crl.R.C. No. 172 of 1994', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2002-06-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 764 and 765 of 1993 with Crl.R.C. No. 172 of 1994', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92954057/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC confirmed convictions, enhanced 376 sentence to life + Rs 5L compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'the complainant'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0002)

## Wallajahbad Police Sub-Inspector vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, Chennai (CW-2002-0016)

**Record:** CW-2002-0016 (compiler id CWC-0729); case GAP2-001
**Title:** Wallajahbad Police Sub-Inspector vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, Chennai
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: N. Santosh Hegde; K.G. Balakrishnan
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 105-106 of 2002 / (2003) 1 SCC 534; AIR 2003 SC 215
**Judgment:** 2002-11-01 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1985-03-05 (1985)
**Place:** Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu; city town: Wallajahbad; police station or unit: Wallajahbad Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 330; IPC 348; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Wallajahbad Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Wallajahbad Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Wallajahbad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

A Wallajahbad man, a suspect in a double-murder case, was brought to Wallajahbad Police Station on 5 March 1985, beaten in custody by the appellant officers, driven away in a police jeep and found dead the next morning; the officers falsely claimed he had escaped. A habeas corpus petition led the Madras High Court to order a CBCID probe, after which the Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu convicted the officers and the High Court confirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court held the circumstantial chain of last-seen evidence, the false escape story and identification of the body proved custodial murder beyond doubt. It dismissed the appeals, sustaining life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC plus concurrent terms under Sections 330, 348 and 201 IPC.

> Torturing a person and using third degree methods are of medieval nature and they are barbaric and contrary to law.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1622549/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Wallajahbad Police Sub-Inspector vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, Chennai
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2003) 1 SCC 534; AIR 2003 SC 215', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2002-11-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2003) 1 SCC 534; AIR 2003 SC 215', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1622549/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified; life sentences of two Wallajahbad SIs for custodial murder confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0016)

## Chidambaram Police Sub-Inspector and Others v. State represented by Superintendent of Police (CW-2002-0011)

**Record:** CW-2002-0011 (compiler id CWC-0498); case SWDERELI-007
**Title:** Chidambaram Police Sub-Inspector and Others v. State represented by Superintendent of Police
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: N. Dhinakar; F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 677 and 680 of 1997 (against Sessions Case No. 99 of 1993, Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore)
**Judgment:** 2002-11-28 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-05-30 (1992)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu; city town: Chidambaram; police station or unit: Chidambaram Town Police Station; Annamalainagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 218; IPC 348; IPC 330; IPC 323; IPC 343
**Officers (gated display forms):** Mehboob Batcha (A1) (Sub-Inspector); S. Parthasaraty (A2) (Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Chidambaram man; Chidambaram woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Madras High Court dismissed the appeals of Sub-Inspectors (A1) and S. Parthasaraty (A2) arising from the illegal detention and torture of theft suspect a man from 30 May to 2 June 1992 and the gang-rape of his wife a woman by special-team policemen. The Court held A1 and A2 prepared false records (Exs.P-76 to P-78, including a false FIR as Crime No. 159/1992) to show a 2 June 1992 arrest and thereby save their subordinate constables. The Court confirmed their convictions under Section 218 IPC along with convictions under Sections 348, 330, 354 and 376(2) IPC against the appellants, acquitting only on the Section 220 charges. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> and the officers, in order to save their sub-ordinate police constables, prepared Exs.P-76 to P-78. Therefore, the conviction of A1 under Charge No. 30 framed u/s 218 IPC and the conviction of A2 for the same offence framed under Charge No. 31, are justified.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26071083/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 30
**display title redacted:** Chidambaram Police Sub-Inspector and Others v. State represented by Superintendent of Police
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 677 and 680 of 1997 (against Sessions Case No. 99 of 1993, Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2002-11-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 677 and 680 of 1997 (against Sessions Case No. 99 of 1993, Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26071083/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SIs 218 IPC convictions for false cover-up records confirmed; appeals dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0011)

## Alanganallur Woman v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2003-0002)

**Record:** CW-2003-0002 (compiler id CWC-0473); case SOUTH-005
**Title:** Alanganallur Woman v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: P. Sathasivam
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 5510 of 1997
**Judgment:** 2003-02-21 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-10-21 (1989)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Alanganallur; police station or unit: Alanganallur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 323; IPC 166; IPC 306; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police (Crime), Alanganallur Police Station; Police personnel, Alanganallur Police Station; Police personnel, Alanganallur Police Station; Police personnel, Alanganallur Police Station; Police personnel, Alanganallur Police Station; Police personnel, Alanganallur Police Station; Police personnel, Alanganallur Police Station (7 in record)
**Victims:** Alanganallur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Justice P. Sathasivam awarded Rs 2 lakh compensation to Pandiammal for the custodial torture-death of her husband \[name withheld\] at Alanganallur police station on 21 October 1989 (Rs 50,000 interim already deposited plus Rs 1.5 lakh balance in Bank of Maharashtra, Madurai, with quarterly interest to the widow). An Alanganallur man was detained over a cow-theft complaint; police claimed he hanged himself in the station bathroom and dumped the body in the Periyar Main Channel, but 19 wounds were found on the body. The RDO Madurai enquiry under PSO 145 found 7 police officials jointly responsible and the Government ordered criminal prosecution (P.R.C. No. 27 of 1996) and departmental action. Seven Alanganallur police-station personnel were acquitted of the charges by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, on 30 November 2000 in Sessions Case No. 587 of 1999; the judgment does not name them. The Court held the Government liable despite the pending prosecution.

> However, in the light of the decision of the Government accepting the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, holding 7 police officials were responsible for the death of the said an Alanganallur man and ordering prosecution and departmental action against them, I am of the view that in all fairness the Government itself ought to have granted financial assistance to the petitioner.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1570568/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Alanganallur Woman v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-02-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 5510 of 1997', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1570568/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC awarded Rs 2L for an Alanganallur man's torture-death at Alanganallur PS; 7 officials held responsible.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0002)

## Udhagamandalam Police Constable v. State rep. by S.D.M. (CW-2003-0017)

**Record:** CW-2003-0017 (compiler id CWC-0905); case GAP2-57-001
**Title:** Udhagamandalam Police Constable v. State rep. by S.D.M.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Y. K. Sabharwal; H. K. Sema
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 929-930 of 2002 / (2003) 6 SCC 73
**Judgment:** 2003-04-28 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-03-11 (1989)
**Place:** The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu; city town: Udhagamandalam; police station or unit: Conoor Police Station (Prohibition Wing); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 346; IPC 366; IPC 376
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Prohibition Wing, Conoor Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Udhagamandalam woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 7 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. On the night of 11-12 March 1989, a police constable took PW1 and her husband from a Kethi bus stand in a taxi on the pretext of suspicion, pushed the husband out en route, and raped PW1 in a Woodlands Hotel room at Udhagamandalam; she escaped in the morning and reported to Kethi Police Station. \[name withheld\], a constable in the Prohibition Wing of Conoor Police Station, was convicted by the trial court under Sections 346, 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced to 7 years RI with a Rs 10,000 fine, affirmed by the High Court. He challenged only his identity before the Supreme Court. The Court held identity proved by hotel booking records, his unexplained whereabouts, and his refusal to give a semen sample, and dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence.

> The appellant at the relevant time was posted as a Constable in the Prohibition Wing of Conoor Police Station. The victim, PW1, was a young, recently married rustic woman. The commission of crime on the person of the victim by a Police Constable has also been fully established and is not a matter in issue.

**Sources (3):** [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2003/april/visveswaran-vs-state-rep-by-s-d-m-77); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1527467/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609add9e4b0149711412583)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Udhagamandalam Police Constable v. State rep. by S.D.M.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2003) 6 SCC 73', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2003-04-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2003) 6 SCC 73', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2003/april/visveswaran-vs-state-rep-by-s-d-m-77', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1527467/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609add9e4b0149711412583', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified (AdvocateKhoj + Indian Kanoon); police constable's rape conviction upheld, appeals dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2003-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0017)

## Karur Woman v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2003-0009)

**Record:** CW-2003-0009 (compiler id CWC-0472); case SOUTH-003
**Title:** Karur Woman v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: D. Murugesan
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 13577 of 1996
**Judgment:** 2003-10-29 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-03-23 (1995)
**Place:** Karur, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Tiruchirappalli); city town: Karur; police station or unit: Karur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Karur Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Karur man, age 29 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 9 lakh (Rs 9,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Justice D. Murugesan held that a Karur man died in police custody due to torture by SI of Karur police station and awarded Rs 9 lakh total just compensation (Rs 8 lakh balance after the Rs 1 lakh ex-gratia already paid), apportioned equally among the widow, two minor sons and mother, payable within one month. A Karur man was taken into custody at 5 a.m. on 23 March 1995 and beaten to death in the police van; the Sub-Collector Karur enquiry under PSO 145 found death solely due to torture by the SI and the post-mortem showed neurogenic shock from chest injuries. The State did not deny torture in its counter. The court held \[name withheld\] to have tortured and beaten the deceased to death and ordered Rs 9 lakh total compensation with departmental punishment; the related criminal case ended in acquittal with the State appeal pending, so no criminal conviction subsists on this record. The Court computed quantum on the motor-accident multiplier method (Rs 6,000/month income, multiplier 18), noting the SI's criminal prosecution had ended in acquittal with a State appeal pending.

> The deceased \[name withheld\] died while he was in police custody and that too, due to harassment at the hands of the Sub Inspector of Police, Karur Police Station.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/779868/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Karur Woman v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-10-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 900,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 13577 of 1996', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/779868/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC held a Karur man tortured to death by Karur SI; Rs 9L total compensation (Rs 8L balance).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0009)

## Chennai Man v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (CW-2004-0007)

**Record:** CW-2004-0007 (compiler id CWC-0822); case GAP2-37-002
**Title:** Chennai Man v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. P. Sivasubramaniam
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 14879 of 1994 / (2004) 03 MAD CK 0191
**Judgment:** 2004-03-04 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-06-21 (1993)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Chennai; police station or unit: E-2 Royapettah Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, E-2 Royapettah Police Station; Head Constable, E-2 Royapettah Police Station; Constable, E-2 Royapettah Police Station; Constable, E-2 Royapettah Police Station; Constable, E-2 Royapettah Police Station (5 in record)
**Victims:** Chennai man, age 24 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 4.3 lakh (Rs 4,30,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

On 4 March 2004 the Madras High Court (K. P. Sivasubramaniam, J.) allowed the writ petition of S. Meena, a Class IV postal employee whose 24-year-old son \[name withheld\] was brutally beaten by E-2 Royapettah police personnel on the night of 21 June 1993 and died. The court accepted eyewitness accounts and the P.A. to Collector's Clause-145 PSO enquiry findings holding respondents 7 to 11 responsible for the custodial assault, torture and murder. The court fixed total compensation at Rs. 4,30,000 (Rs. 2,50,000 plus interest and Rs. 15,000 funeral expenses), directing payment of the Rs. 3,80,000 balance after deducting Rs. 50,000 already paid, within six weeks, failing which 18% interest, with liberty to the State to recover from the party-respondents. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Here is a case where the victim who is admittedly not a rowdy and had never been to the Police Station before, has been done to death by inhuman and sadistic action by the party/respondents.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124485/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/72225/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 75
**display title redacted:** Chennai Man v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2004-03-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 430,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2004) 03 MAD CK 0191', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124485/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/72225/s-meena-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Full judgment verified via mirror; custodial murder found, Rs.4.3 lakh total compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2004-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0007)

## The Secretary, Ministry of Railways & The General Manager, Southern Railway v. Smt. S. Santhanamary & Ors. (CW-2004-0010)

**Record:** CW-2004-0010 (compiler id CWC-0828); case GAP2-37-001
**Title:** The Secretary, Ministry of Railways & The General Manager, Southern Railway v. Smt. S. Santhanamary & Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: P. K. Misra; A. S. Venkatachala Moorthy
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal No. 852 of 2002 / (2004) 04 MAD CK 0035
**Judgment:** 2004-04-22 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-09-01 (1991)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Chennai; police station or unit: Tondiarpet Marshalling Yard RPF Station; force: railway
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named
**Victims:** Chennai man, age 28 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

On 22 April 2004 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the Railways' writ appeal and upheld a single judge's direction to pay Rs. 1,00,000 compensation for a custodial death. The deceased, aged about 28, was apprehended by the Railway Protection Force around 00:30 on 1 September 1991, secured in the Tondiarpet Marshalling Yard RPF lock-up at 04:30, and found dead at 05:00. The court found on a preponderance of probabilities that he died on account of torture, rejecting the natural-death defence where no inquest or post-mortem material was preserved or produced. Rs. 50,000 already disbursed was adjusted against the award, with the balance payable with 9% interest. Individual RPF personnel were not identified in the judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the absence of any prima facie acceptable material, the inevitable conclusion is that the deceased must have died on account of torture.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/362443/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/15791/the-secretary-ministry-of-railways-and-the-general-manager/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** The Secretary, Ministry of Railways & The General Manager, Southern Railway v. Smt. S. Santhanamary & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2004-04-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2004) 04 MAD CK 0035', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/362443/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/15791/the-secretary-ministry-of-railways-and-the-general-manager/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench judgment verified via mirror; torture finding and Rs.1 lakh award upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2004-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0010)

## T. vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2005-0010)

**Record:** CW-2005-0010 (compiler id CWC-0370); case TAMILN-006
**Title:** T. vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: A.P. Shah, C.J.; F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 1167 of 1998 / 2006 (1) MLJ 108
**Judgment:** 2005-11-29 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-07-01 (1989)
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu; city town: Vaiyampatty; police station or unit: Vaiyampatty Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Article 21; Constitution of India Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Vaiyampatty woman; Vaiyampatty man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to Dalit agricultural laborer the complainant and her husband \[name withheld\] from Rs 75,000 to Rs 5,00,000 for custodial rape and illegal confinement by a Sub-Inspector in July 1989. The victim had been called to the police station where her husband was held, threatened, stripped of jewelry, and subjected to custodial rape. Chief Justice A.P. Shah held that rape by police officers constitutes a gross violation of fundamental rights and human dignity under Article 21, warranting public law compensation. The Court ordered the State to pay the enhanced amount with 6% interest, granted liberty to recover the sum from delinquent police personnel, and directed the government to consider allotting agricultural land under the THADCO scheme. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Where a heinous crime of rape committed by the police personnel, who are public functionaries, the matter clearly relates to the violation of basic human rights as well as Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/839968/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** T. vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-11-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2006 (1) MLJ 108', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/839968/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court enhanced compensation to Rs 5,00,000 for custodial rape of Dalit woman Lakshmi by Sub-Inspector, recoverable from delinquent police.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'the complainant'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2005-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0010)

## Chennai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu (CW-2006-0003)

**Record:** CW-2006-0003 (compiler id CWC-0358); case TAMILN-005
**Title:** Chennai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: P. Sathasivam; J.A.K. Sampathkumar
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 587/2001 (against W.P. No. 12633/1999)
**Judgment:** 2006-03-06 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-04-12 (1997)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Chennai; police station or unit: E.1 Mylapore Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Grade I Police Constable, E.1 Mylapore Police Station; Traffic Police Constable, E.1 Mylapore Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Chennai man, age 22 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the writ appeal of K. Kabali of Mylapore, whose 22-year-old son \[name withheld\] was forcibly thrown into a police jeep by traffic police near Luz Corner Signal on 12 April 1997 and found dead the next day, directing the State to pay a further Rs 3 lakh compensation under Article 226 in addition to the Rs 50,000 ex gratia already sanctioned. The Court relied on the Maruthamuthu Commission of Enquiry findings, accepted by the Government and tabled in the Assembly, that the action of Traffic Inspector and Police Constable was not in accordance with rules and their negligence caused the death. It held compensation under Article 226 appropriate where violation of fundamental rights by public functionaries is established, and noted the Government had ordered departmental action against both personnel for dereliction of duty. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is clear from the findings of the Commission of Enquiry which was accepted by the Government that though the death was not due to police torture, undoubtedly, the death occurred due to the negligence of the police personnel.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1696668/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Chennai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-03-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.A. No. 587/2001 (against W.P. No. 12633/1999)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1696668/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras High Court Division Bench directed a further Rs 3 lakh compensation (over Rs 50,000 ex gratia) for the death of Ramesh after traffic-police pickup, relying on the Commission of Enquiry negligence finding.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0003)

## Ramasamy vs State (CW-2006-0012)

**Record:** CW-2006-0012 (compiler id CWC-0354); case TAMILN-001; aliases: CWC-0430
**Title:** Ramasamy vs State
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: R. Balasubramanian; A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 735 & 738 of 2004 (with Crl.A. No. 668 of 2005)
**Judgment:** 2006-12-04 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-03-21 (1993)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu; city town: Kammapuram; police station or unit: Kammapuram Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 342; IPC 348; IPC 330; IPC 201; IPC 220; IPC 218; IPC 323
**Officers (gated display forms):** Anthonysamy (Sub-Inspector); Veerasamy (Constable); Ramasamy (Constable); Inspector, Kammapuram (4 in record)
**Victims:** Kammapuram man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court confirmed the murder convictions and life sentences (with Rs 2,000 fine) of Sub-Inspector Anthonysamy and Constable Veerasamy of Kammapuram Police Station for beating burglary suspect \[name withheld\] to death in the station on 21-22 March 1993, dumping his body on a road and passing the death off as an escape from custody. Relying on the evidence of the victim wife and a co-detenu, the Court held it proved beyond doubt that a Kammapuram man died in the station after a brutal assault by the two officers, and confirmed the allied convictions for wrongful confinement, extortion of confession by hurt, destruction of evidence and related offences while setting aside the conspiracy charge. A-3 Constable Ramasamy was convicted only under Section 323 IPC and admonished under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act with no sentence, being acquitted of the graver charges with fines refunded; the life sentences in this judgment concern his co-accused. Constable Ramasamy was acquitted of the grave charges, convicted only under Section 323 IPC and admonished under the Probation of Offenders Act; Inspector accepted his fine-only conviction and the State appeal against the doctor acquittal was dismissed.

> Therefore the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 7 establish beyond doubt that a Kammapuram man definitely met his end in the police station itself after the brutal attack on him by A.1 and A.2.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165147/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182869297/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Ramasamy vs State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 735 & 738 of 2004 (with Crl.A. No. 668 of 2005)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2006-12-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. Nos. 735 & 738 of 2004 (with Crl.A. No. 668 of 2005)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165147/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182869297/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras High Court confirmed life sentences of SI Anthonysamy and Constable Veerasamy for the custodial murder of a Kammapuram man; convicted Constable Ramasamy only under s.323 IPC and admonished him.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0012)

## The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. vs R. Dhanalakshmi (CW-2007-0004)

**Record:** CW-2007-0004 (compiler id CWC-0376); case TAMILN-012
**Title:** The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. vs R. Dhanalakshmi
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: P. Sathasivam, J.; S. Tamilvanan, J.
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 1169 of 2004
**Judgment:** 2007-04-11 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-03-23 (1995)
**Place:** Karur, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Tiruchirappalli); city town: Karur; police station or unit: Karur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Karur Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Karur man, age 29 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the State's appeal against the single Judge's order dated 29.10.2003 in W.P. No. 13577 of 1996 and affirmed that a Karur man, aged about 29, died of police torture in Karur custody. The Court recorded that SI took a Karur man from his house at about 5 a.m. on 23.03.1995, that he was tortured and beaten to death, and that the post-mortem showed death by neurogenic shock from chest injuries, corroborated by the Sub-Collector's enquiry under Police Standing Order 145. Holding the family undoubtedly entitled to adequate compensation but cutting the multiplier-based Rs 9 lakh for want of documentary proof of lorry income, the Court fixed Rs 5 lakh total, with the balance over the Rs 3 lakh already paid (Rs 1 lakh ex-gratia plus Rs 2 lakh interim) payable within eight weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> ends of justice would be met by awarding a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the petitioner

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/589614/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. vs R. Dhanalakshmi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-04-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.A. No. 1169 of 2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/589614/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench affirmed a Karur man died of police torture in Karur custody and fixed total compensation at Rs 5 lakh (reducing single Judge's Rs 9 lakh).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0004)

## P. Veeramuthu vs State by Inspector of Police, Vigilance (CW-2007-0005)

**Record:** CW-2007-0005 (compiler id CWC-0356); case TAMILN-003
**Title:** P. Veeramuthu vs State by Inspector of Police, Vigilance
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal against Spl. C.C. No. 98 of 1991 (Special Judge-cum-CJM, Salem)
**Judgment:** 2007-04-13 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-01-23 (1991)
**Place:** Salem, Tamil Nadu; city town: Mecheri; police station or unit: Mecheri Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** P. Veeramuthu (Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mecheri woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal of Sub-Inspector P. Veeramuthu of Mecheri Police Station, Salem district, confirming his trap-case conviction for demanding and receiving Rs 500 from complainant \[name withheld\] on 23 January 1991 to initiate proceedings in Mecheri PS Crime No. 29 of 1991. Though the complainant turned hostile, the Court sustained the conviction on the trap witness and corroborating evidence, holding the prosecution had proved guilt under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It held the accused liable to be punished under only one provision and modified the sentence to a single term of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d), with the trial fine of Rs 1,000. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment of the learned Special Judge in Spl. C.C. No. 98 of 1991 on the file of Special Judge and First Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. The accused is convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157191328/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 34
**display title redacted:** P. Veeramuthu vs State by Inspector of Police, Vigilance
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal against Spl. C.C. No. 98 of 1991 (Special Judge-cum-CJM, Salem)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2007-04-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal against Spl. C.C. No. 98 of 1991 (Special Judge-cum-CJM, Salem)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157191328/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras High Court dismissed appeal and confirmed PC Act conviction of SI P. Veeramuthu for Rs 500 trap bribe, sentencing him to a single term of one year RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0005)

## Chennai Resident v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (CW-2007-0025)

**Record:** CW-2007-0025 (compiler id CWC-0832); case GAP2-38-005
**Title:** Chennai Resident v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: A. P. Shah; P. Jyothimani
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 1130 of 2006 and W.P. No. 24160 of 2006 / (2007) 4 MLJ 849
**Judgment:** 2007-07-10 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-06-12 (2006)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Chennai; police station or unit: P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station; Sub-Inspector, P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station; Police personnel, P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station; Police personnel, P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station; Police Constable, P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station (5 in record)
**Victims:** Chennai resident, age 18 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. the survivor, an 18-year-old transgender youth on bail with a daily-reporting condition at P-3 Vyasarpadi police station, was subjected to sustained physical and sexual torture by station personnel during his reporting visits. He self-immolated opposite the station on 12 June 2006 and died of burn injuries on 29 June 2006. Relying on the Registrar (Vigilance) enquiry report, fabricated general-diary entries, a tampered accident register and the dying declaration, the Division Bench held the suicide was solely in consequence of the conduct of respondents 4 to 8. It directed the State to pay Rs.5 lakhs compensation, ordered disciplinary action against the five policemen, and left the State free to recover the amount from them. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> only because of the conduct of respondents 4 to 8, the said \[the survivor\] has attempted to commit suicide and ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 29.06.2006

**Sources (2):** [clpr.org.in](https://clpr.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/46_Jayalakshmi_v_State_of_Tamil_Nadu.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1373799/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Chennai Resident v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-07-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2007) 4 MLJ 849', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://clpr.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/46_Jayalakshmi_v_State_of_Tamil_Nadu.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1373799/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC Division Bench partly allowed W.A. 1130/2006: police torture drove victim to self-immolation; Rs.5L compensation plus disciplinary action against R4-R8.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0025)

## Madurai Police Head Constable vs The Director General of Police and Others (CW-2007-0029)

**Record:** CW-2007-0029 (compiler id CWC-1271); case GAP3-84-001
**Title:** Madurai Police Head Constable vs The Director General of Police and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) No. 4024 of 2005
**Judgment:** 2007-10-01 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-03-26 (2004)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Madurai; police station or unit: Patrol Vehicle No.1, Madurai City Control Room; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Tamil Nadu Police State and Subordinate Service Rules R.3(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Patrol Vehicle No.1, Madurai City Control Room (1 in record)
**Victims:** Madurai resident; Madurai resident; Madurai resident (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. On 26 March 2004, Head Constable, on patrol in Vehicle No.1 of the Madurai City Control Room, threatened the supervisor and salesmen of TASMAC Shop No.5135 and forced Rs.100 from them on the pretext the shop was open past licence hours. The Assistant Commissioner's Rule 3(b) enquiry held the charge proved and the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, removed him from service on 19 August 2004; his appeal and revision were rejected. The Madurai Bench held the enquiry procedure suffered no infirmity and its conclusion was not perverse, so the bribery finding stood. The Court agreed the misconduct attracted only a major penalty but held removal disproportionate to 29 years of unblemished service, modifying it to compulsory retirement with terminal benefits and directing pension papers within eight weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court is of the view that while the petitioner's misconduct cannot be condoned and he must be imposed only with major penalty, but, however, considering the penalty now imposed, it is clear that it will result in serious consequences of not only depriving the petitioner his employment but also the very survival of the family will be in question.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/660710/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/560902bae4b0149711159e0e)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Madurai Police Head Constable vs The Director General of Police and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-10-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.(MD) No. 4024 of 2005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/660710/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/560902bae4b0149711159e0e', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Bribe-extortion finding against head constable sustained; removal modified to compulsory retirement (major penalty upheld).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0029)

## The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. vs Pulliammal (CW-2007-0018)

**Record:** CW-2007-0018 (compiler id CWC-0377); case TAMILN-013
**Title:** The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. vs Pulliammal
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: D. Murugesan, J.; P.R. Shivakumar, J.
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 1328 of 2001
**Judgment:** 2007-12-20 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1996-11-02 (1996)
**Place:** Theni, Tamil Nadu; city town: Periyakulam; police station or unit: Periyakulam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Periyakulam Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Periyakulam man, age 44 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the State's appeal against the single Judge's order dated 08.12.2000 in W.P. No. 11231 of 1997 and confirmed Rs 2 lakh compensation for the death of Pancharaju due to custodial violence. The Court recorded that Pancharaju, aged about 44, was arrested on 09.10.1996 by Periyakulam police in a prohibition case (Cr. No. 547 of 1996), was severely beaten by police, and died on 02.11.1996 after remand and hospitalisation. Rejecting the State's natural-cause defence based on the RDO enquiry, the Court upheld the finding of custodial violence and held Rs 2 lakh reasonable for the coolie's widow and three minor children, with the balance over the Rs 1 lakh already deposited payable within one month. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge regarding the fixation of liability to pay compensation for the death of Pancharaju due to custodial violence cannot be interfered with.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/273288/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/34614/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-pulliammal/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. vs Pulliammal
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-12-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.A. No. 1328 of 2001', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/273288/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/34614/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-pulliammal/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench dismissed State appeal and confirmed Rs 2 lakh compensation for Pancharaju's death due to custodial violence at Periyakulam.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0018)

## Tiruvannamalai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu (CW-2008-0002)

**Record:** CW-2008-0002 (compiler id CWC-0357); case TAMILN-004
**Title:** Tiruvannamalai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: Elipe Dharma Rao; S.R. Singharavelu
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 1018/2006 (against W.P. No. 22366/1993) / (2008) 3 MLJ 167
**Judgment:** 2008-02-05 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-09-11 (1993)
**Place:** Tiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Tiruvannamalai-Sambuvarayar); city town: Tiruvannamalai; police station or unit: Tiruvannamalai Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel (1 in record)
**Victims:** Tiruvannamalai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the writ appeal of Rajammal, widow of pawn broker a Tiruvannamalai man, who was picked up by a Tiruvannamalai police party on 11 September 1993, died the same day from police excesses, and whose body was dumped in the Thachambattu Reserve Forest. Treating the custodial death as established and noting the State had sanctioned criminal prosecution of the officers (C.C. No. 1514 of 2000 before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai), the Court held compensation against the State the appropriate remedy for the established infringement of Article 21. Having regard to the widow large family of six children and financial distress, it enhanced the single judge award from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 5 lakh as prayed for, relying on Nilabati Behera, D.K. Basu and Shyamsunder Trivedi on custodial violence. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> from the said G.O. it is clear that the husband of the petitioner died due to the torture by the police personnel of Veraiyur Police Station and the said conclusion of the Government is sufficient for awarding compensation.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1962211/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Tiruvannamalai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-02-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2008) 3 MLJ 167', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1962211/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras High Court Division Bench allowed writ appeal and enhanced compensation from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 5 lakh for the custodial death of a Tiruvannamalai man at Tiruvannamalai.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2008-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0002)

## Coimbatore Man and Anr. vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (CW-2008-0021)

**Record:** CW-2008-0021 (compiler id CWC-0830); case GAP2-38-003
**Title:** Coimbatore Man and Anr. vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: A.P. Shah; Prabha Sridevan
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 716 of 2007 / (2008) 4 MLJ 753
**Judgment:** 2008-04-29 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-12-14 (2006)
**Place:** Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu; city town: Coimbatore; police station or unit: All Women Police Station, Coimbatore; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (R5), All Women Police Station, Coimbatore; Police Constable (R6), All Women Police Station / B-3 Police Station, Coimbatore; Police Constable (R7), Coimbatore City police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Coimbatore man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court (A.P. Shah, C.J. and Prabha Sridevan, J.) allowed the Coimbatore Bar Association's petition for a disabled practising advocate (post-brain-surgery, low vision) who was kicked and beaten on 14 December 2006 by woman Constable and striking-force constables at the town bus stand and again at the All Women Police Station, with a false modesty-outrage case foisted on him. Accepting retired Justice K.P. Sivasubramaniam's Commissioner report, the court held respondents 5 to 7 had beaten the advocate mercilessly and violated his human rights with impunity. It awarded Rs.50,000 compensation to the second petitioner, recoverable by the State from respondents 5 to 7. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Though the incident was triggered off by the second Petitioner dashing against the fifth Respondent due to his low vision, there is no justification for the behaviour of the police personnel in having beaten him mercilessly, especially Respondents 5, 6 and 7.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/72310/coimbatore-bar-association-appellant-hash-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-respondent-1/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/291152/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090308e4b014971115a990)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Coimbatore Man and Anr. vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-04-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2008) 4 MLJ 753', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/72310/coimbatore-bar-association-appellant-hash-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-respondent-1/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/291152/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090308e4b014971115a990', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ allowed; R5-R7 beat disabled advocate mercilessly; Rs.50,000 recoverable from them.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2008-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0021)

## Courtalam Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (CW-2008-0025)

**Record:** CW-2008-0025 (compiler id CWC-0829); case GAP2-38-002
**Title:** Courtalam Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: P.K. Misra; K. Kannan
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 29074 of 2007 / (2008) 08 MAD CK 0069
**Judgment:** 2008-08-28 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-07-26 (2007)
**Place:** Tenkasi, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Tirunelveli); city town: Courtalam; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Courtalam/Tenkasi police (respondents 4-15)
**Victims:** Courtalam man; Courtalam man; Courtalam man; Courtalam man (4 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 40,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court (P.K. Misra and K. Kannan, JJ.) allowed the writ petition filed by the Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for four Tuticorin advocates, a Courtalam man, a Courtalam man, a Courtalam man and a Courtalam man, who were rounded up at Courtalam in the early hours of 26 July 2007, detained at the police station and produced before the Magistrate at 11.30 a.m. with stick-mark injuries. Rejecting the police version of a public scuffle with a masseur, the court held the cane injuries proved assault in admitted police custody and that the State was vicariously liable. It awarded Rs.10,000 to each of the four advocates (Rs.40,000 total), leaving rival criminal complaints to trial. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The inference is obvious. It is the police who were responsible for the injuries on lawyers.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/66630/chairman-bar-council-of-tamil-nadu-appellant-hash-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-respondent/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090393e4b014971115be33)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Courtalam Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-08-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 40,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2008) 08 MAD CK 0069', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/66630/chairman-bar-council-of-tamil-nadu-appellant-hash-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090393e4b014971115be33', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ allowed; police held responsible for custodial assault on 4 advocates; Rs.10,000 each.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2008-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0025)

## Paramakudi Woman v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (CW-2008-0026)

**Record:** CW-2008-0026 (compiler id CWC-0837); case GAP2-38-010
**Title:** Paramakudi Woman v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. N. Basha
**Case number / citation:** Crl.O.P. No. 3715 of 2004 / LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-249
**Judgment:** 2008-09-06 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-12-01 (2002)
**Place:** Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu; city town: Paramakudi; police station or unit: Paramakudi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 482; IPC 306; IPC 454; IPC 380; CrPC 174; Constitution Art 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station; Sub-Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Paramakudi woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Paramakudi woman, a domestic worker taken into Paramakudi police custody for interrogation in a theft case (Cr. No. 455/2002), was found hanging at the wireless tower behind the station on 1 December 2002; the post-mortem showed ante-mortem injuries and the DSPs own counter regarded it as a custodial death. The RDO enquiry under PSO 151 found fault but led only to a Section 306 IPC private complaint (S.C. No. 105/2007). The court held the sequence and medical evidence revealed tell-tale custodial violence, expressed displeasure at the handling, stayed the sessions trial, directed a DSP-led CB-CID reinvestigation with final report in six months, and ordered Rs.3 lakhs compensation to the husband and daughter within four weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The sequence of events in respect of this case and the perusal of the medical evidence, viz., the Postmortem Certificate reveals the tell-tale of the custodial violence committed on the poor victim.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11060/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=218002901300&title=henri-tiphagne-vs-state-of-tamilnadu)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Paramakudi Woman v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['compensation_inr'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-09-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-249', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11060/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=218002901300&title=henri-tiphagne-vs-state-of-tamilnadu', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC (K.N. Basha, J.) disposed Crl.O.P. 3715/2004: prima facie custodial violence disclosed; Rs.3L compensation plus CB-CID reinvestigation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2008-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0026)

## Korattur Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (CW-2008-0028)

**Record:** CW-2008-0028 (compiler id CWC-0831); case GAP2-38-001
**Title:** Korattur Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K.K. Sasidharan
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 11388 of 1999 / (2009) 1 MLJ 1090; 2009 Cri LJ 866
**Judgment:** 2008-10-20 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-11-14 (1998)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Korattur; police station or unit: Korattur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 107; IPC 109; IPC 306; IPC 309; IPC 380; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Korattur Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Korattur Police Station; Head Constable, Korattur Police Station; Police Constable, Korattur Police Station; Police Constable, Korattur Police Station; Police Constable, Korattur Police Station (6 in record)
**Victims:** Korattur man, age 26 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3.3 lakh (Rs 3,32,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court (K.K. Sasidharan, J.) allowed the writ petition of B. Ammu, widow of 26-year-old construction worker a Korattur man, who hanged himself with his lungi in the Korattur police station lavatory while in custody on 14 November 1998 in a theft case. Relying on the RDO magisterial enquiry and Collector and Home Department reports, the court held the station officers responsible for serious lapses, including allowing the lungi against Police Standing Order 661, a blank general diary and a missing arrest memo. Holding the police responsible for the death though it was suicide, the court awarded Rs.3,32,000 with 6% interest (Rs.4,32,000 on MV Act multiplier less Rs.1,00,000 ex gratia already paid). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The report of the Home Department prepared on the basis of the Magisterial enquiry report as well as the report submitted by the District Collector clearly shows that death could have been avoided had the police officers shown little care and seriousness. Therefore, there is no further proof necessary to come to the conclusion, that the police were responsible for the death though it was an act of suicide.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/66634/b-ammu-appellant-hash-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-another-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=218002955300&title=b-ammu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Korattur Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-10-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 332,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2009) 1 MLJ 1090; 2009 Cri LJ 866', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/66634/b-ammu-appellant-hash-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-another-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=218002955300&title=b-ammu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ allowed; police negligence caused lock-up suicide; Rs.3.32 lakh with 6% interest.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2008-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0028)

## Pallavaram Woman v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2008-0013)

**Record:** CW-2008-0013 (compiler id CWC-0450); case SWCUSTOD-018
**Title:** Pallavaram Woman v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 15229 of 1999
**Judgment:** 2008-11-05 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-06-20 (1993)
**Place:** Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Kancheepuram); city town: Pallavaram; police station or unit: Pallavaram Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Pallavaram Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Pallavaram Police Station; Police Constable (2352), Pallavaram Police Station; Police Constable (989), Pallavaram Police Station; Police Constable (2150), Pallavaram Police Station; Police Constable (818), Pallavaram Police Station (6 in record)
**Victims:** Pallavaram man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Justice K. Chandru held that mason a Pallavaram man, picked up on 20.06.1993 over alleged illicit liquor, was tortured to death in Pallavaram police custody and his body returned to his widow for burial on 23.06.1993. The Court noted the State itself had found policemen guilty yet let them off with minor punishments, which it condemned. It awarded Rs.5 lakh compensation to the widow payable within four weeks with a compliance report, and directed the State to proceed against the guilty officers for violating constitutional safeguards, recovering the amount from their salaries if necessary. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Since the policemen who were found guilty even by the State have been let out with minor punishments, the action of the State is highly condemnable.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/824758/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** Pallavaram Woman v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-11-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 15229 of 1999', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/824758/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment text verified; custodial torture-death finding with Rs.5L compensation + action vs officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2008-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0013)

## Thoothukudi Man v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (CW-2009-0018)

**Record:** CW-2009-0018 (compiler id CWC-0833); case GAP2-38-006
**Title:** Thoothukudi Man v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 6195 of 2000 / (2009) 01 MAD CK 0111
**Judgment:** 2009-01-19 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-09-18 (1999)
**Place:** Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu; city town: Thoothukudi; police station or unit: Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 22(1); Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station; Grade-I Police Constable, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station (10 in record)
**Victims:** Thoothukudi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 8 lakh (Rs 8,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Thoothukudi man, a ward member and bullock-cart driver, was picked up on 17 September 1999 by Thalamuthu Nagar police, chained and tortured overnight in the station, and brought dead to Thoothukudi Government Hospital on 18 September 1999 with 38 injuries. The RDO enquiry under PSO 145 and the States own G.O.Ms. No. 1284/2000 found brutal torture by the named duty personnel and ordered criminal prosecution and departmental action, but no action was shown taken. The court held the detention without authority violated Article 22(1) and the D.K. Basu safeguards, directed the State to pay Rs.8 lakhs within four weeks, and ordered proceedings against the guilty officers with recovery from their personal salaries if necessary. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner lost her only breadwinner by the gruesome act committed by the policemen functioning under the control of the third respondent.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/28795/krishnammal-appellant-hash-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/271846/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Thoothukudi Man v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-01-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 800,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2009) 01 MAD CK 0111', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/28795/krishnammal-appellant-hash-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/271846/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC (K. Chandru, J.) allowed W.P. 6195/2000: custodial torture-death of a Thoothukudi man proved (38 injuries); Rs.8L compensation plus action/salary recovery against 10 named policemen.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2009-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0018)

## Sankarankoil Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2009-0003)

**Record:** CW-2009-0003 (compiler id CWC-0373); case TAMILN-009
**Title:** Sankarankoil Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: P.K. Misra, J.; K. Chandru, J.
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 11569 of 1999
**Judgment:** 2009-03-14 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-09-16 (1998)
**Place:** Tenkasi, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Tirunelveli); city town: Sankarankoil; police station or unit: Sankarankoil Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Article 21; Constitution of India Article 22(1); Constitution of India Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Vasudevanallur Police Station; Sub-Inspector of Police, Sankarankoil Police Station; Head Constable, Sankarankoil Police Station; Police Constable Grade I, Sankarankoil Police Station; Police Constable Grade I, Sankarankoil Police Station; Assistant Station Writer, Grade I Constable, Sankarankoil Police Station (6 in record)
**Victims:** Sankarankoil man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court ordered the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay Rs 2,00,000 as compensation for the custodial death of a Sankarankoil man inside the lockup of Sankarankoil Police Station on 16.09.1998. The deceased had been rounded up without arrest entries being recorded in the general diary, in direct breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's D.K. Basu guidelines. Justices P.K. Misra and K. Chandru held that the illegal arrest and total lack of care in preserving the detainee's life were sufficiently established to impose public law liability upon the State, irrespective of the RDO's preliminary finding of suicide by hanging. The Court directed disbursement of the compensation to the deceased's widow within eight weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the illegal arrest of Late a Sankarankoil man and lack of care in saving his life while in police custody are sufficiently proved and those findings established here are enough to order compensation by the State

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/875091/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Sankarankoil Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-03-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 11569 of 1999', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/875091/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court awarded Rs 2 lakh compensation for lockup death of a Sankarankoil man following illegal arrest by Sankarankoil police.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2009-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0003)

## Sathyamangalam Police Sub-Inspector v. State by Public Prosecutor (CW-2009-0004)

**Record:** CW-2009-0004 (compiler id CWC-0444); case SWBRIBER-018
**Title:** Sathyamangalam Police Sub-Inspector v. State by Public Prosecutor
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Arijit Pasayat; D.K. Jain; M.K. Sharma
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2002 / (2009) 6 SCC 462
**Judgment:** 2009-05-04 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-07-06 (1991)
**Place:** Erode, Tamil Nadu; city town: Sathyamangalam; police station or unit: Sathyamangalam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7 r/w s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) r/w s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Subbu Singh (Sub-Inspector); Police personnel (1 in record)
**Victims:** Sathyamangalam man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court's reversal of acquittal and conviction of Sub-Inspector Subbu Singh, who had demanded Rs.500 through his friend \[name withheld\] from the family of an assault victim before allowing hospital treatment, accepting Rs.100. The Court held that an experienced police officer's unexplained taking of money, coupled with his failure to act against the alleged bribe-giver, proved guilt beyond doubt. It left the minimum sentences of six months (Section 7) and one year's rigorous imprisonment (Section 13) undisturbed and ordered surrender to custody. The co-accused \[name withheld\]'s acquittal was not interfered with. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The accused was a police officer who knew the consequences of the bribe. He had not explained as to why he took up the money in his examination under Section 313 of the Code.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1313476/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Sathyamangalam Police Sub-Inspector v. State by Public Prosecutor
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2009) 6 SCC 462', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2009-05-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2009) 6 SCC 462', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1313476/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment text verified; SI bribe-via-intermediary conviction by HC upheld, surrender ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0004)

## Adirampattinam Man v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2009-0013)

**Record:** CW-2009-0013 (compiler id CWC-0730); case SWILLEGA-087
**Title:** Adirampattinam Man v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: P.K. Misra; R. Subbiah
**Case number / citation:** W.A. Nos. 3120 and 3961 of 2003
**Judgment:** 2009-06-23 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-11-27 (1994)
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu; city town: Adirampattinam; police station or unit: Athirampatnam Police Station, Thanjavur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Athirampatnam PS, Thanjavur; Sub-Inspector, Athirampatnam PS, Thanjavur (2 in record)
**Victims:** Adirampattinam man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court Division Bench (Justices P.K. Misra and R. Subbiah, judgment by R. Subbiah, J.) dismissed both the State's and the heirs' appeals against the 8 August 2003 single-judge award of Rs 3 lakh for an Adirampattinam man's illegal detention. Taken to Athirampatnam police station on 27 November 1994 over a robbery complaint, an Adirampattinam man was kept in unrecorded custody till production before the Magistrate on 3 December 1994 with severe injuries, a detention the State admitted in appeal. Upholding the award with interest lying in deposit (releasable via the Registrar General), the Court held D.K. Basu guidelines were given a go-by and Article 21 violated. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is not disputed by the respondents in the appeal that the deceased appellant was in illegal custody from 27.11.1994 to 03.12.1994 i.e. more than a week and he was harassed by the 6th respondent.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/475804/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Adirampattinam Man v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-06-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.A. Nos. 3120 and 3961 of 2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/475804/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC DB judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; admitted 6-day illegal custody, Rs 3L award upheld, both appeals dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2009-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0013)

## Ayilpatty Man vs Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range and Another (CW-2009-0030)

**Record:** CW-2009-0030 (compiler id CWC-1285); case GAP3-85-014
**Title:** Ayilpatty Man vs Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range and Another
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.36278 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2009-10-07 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-11-15 (1994)
**Place:** Salem, Tamil Nadu; city town: Ayilpatty; police station or unit: Ayilpatty Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.21; Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable Grade I, Ayilpatty Police Station, Salem District (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ayilpatty man; Ayilpatty man; Ayilpatty man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Grade-I Constable challenged the penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect for stripping three schoolboys naked and beating them with a stick at Ayilpatty police station in November 1994. The court examined the PSO 145 enquiry, medical evidence, and hospital records showing the boys' admission as inpatients, and found the evidence sufficient to hold him guilty despite later retractions. The court held that custodial torture strikes at Article 21 and that the penalty was commensurate with the misconduct. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court is fully satisfied that the evidence recorded by the authorities are sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1449034/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Ayilpatty Man vs Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-10-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P. No.36278 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1449034/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed constable's writ; upheld pay-reduction penalty for stripping and beating three schoolboys.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0030)

## Chennai Man vs The Secretary to Government and Others (CW-2009-0033)

**Record:** CW-2009-0033 (compiler id CWC-1284); case GAP3-85-013
**Title:** Chennai Man vs The Secretary to Government and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.12599 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2009-11-05 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-06-22 (1993)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Chennai; police station or unit: E-2 Royapettah Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chennai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3.8 lakh (Rs 3,80,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Inspector challenged the recovery of Rs.76,000 from his salary toward the Rs.3.8 lakh compensation paid to Tmt. Meena for the 1993 custodial death of her husband \[name withheld\] at the E-2 Royapettah lock-up. The court found that the earlier compensation order fixing joint tort responsibility on five policemen, with liberty to recover from them, had become final without appeal and after hearing him. The court held that neither his criminal acquittal nor the quashing of departmental proceedings could defeat the tort recovery. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The payment of compensation arose out of a tort liability of the State in which the petitioner also had a joint responsibility in compensating for such tortious acts.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1478506/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Chennai Man vs The Secretary to Government and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-11-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 380,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No.12599 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1478506/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed Inspector's writ; upheld Rs.76,000 salary recovery toward Rs.3.8 lakh custodial-death compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2009-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0033)

## Ambiligai Man vs Secretary to Government and Another (CW-2009-0035)

**Record:** CW-2009-0035 (compiler id CWC-1286); case GAP3-85-015
**Title:** Ambiligai Man vs Secretary to Government and Another
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.34155 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2009-12-21 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-01-08 (1992)
**Place:** Dindigul, Tamil Nadu; city town: Ambiligai; police station or unit: Ambiligai Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Ambiligai Police Station, Dindigul District (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ambiligai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Head Constable challenged the recovery of Rs.15,000 from his salary toward the Rs.1 lakh paid from the Chief Minister's Public Relief Fund to the family of an Ambiligai man, who died in the Ambiligai police lock-up in January 1992. The court found that the departmental enquiry had proved unlawful detention of over three days with use of excessive force causing death, for which he had already suffered a minor penalty that became final. The court held that making good the Government's loss was an automatic consequence and that his conduct clearly conflicted with D.K. Basu. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The conduct exhibited by the petitioner, namely, detaining a person unlawfully in the lock up for more than three days and where the detenu also subsequently died cannot be condoned.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1636343/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Ambiligai Man vs Secretary to Government and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2009-12-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No.34155 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1636343/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed Head Constable's writ; upheld Rs.15,000 recovery toward Rs.1 lakh relief for 1992 lock-up death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2009-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0035)

## Salem Man, \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] v. National Human Rights Commission and State of Tamil Nadu (CW-2010-0020)

**Record:** CW-2010-0020 (compiler id CWC-0834); case GAP2-38-007
**Title:** Salem Man, \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] v. National Human Rights Commission and State of Tamil Nadu
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. Nos. 27281 to 27283 of 2009 / (2010) 01 MAD CK 0048
**Judgment:** 2010-01-05 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-12-24 (2000)
**Place:** Salem, Tamil Nadu; city town: Salem; police station or unit: Strong-room guard, Mohan Kumaramangalam Government Medical College Hospital; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 226; Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 s.18(3)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Control Room; Grade-I Police Constable, Central Crime Branch; Grade-I Police Constable, Fainance Police Station (3 in record)
**Victims:** Salem man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Remand prisoner a Salem man hanged himself on 24 December 2000 in the strong room of Mohan Kumaramangalam Government Medical College Hospital, Salem, while the three petitioner-policemen were in charge of the guard. The RDO enquiry under PSO 145 and the NHRC found the death in judicial custody was due to the negligence of the strong-room police personnel, and the State paid Rs.50,000 interim compensation to the next of kin. The State ordered recovery of the amount from the three policemen in instalments along with a departmental warning. The court dismissed their writ petitions, holding the States pecuniary loss recoverable from those responsible, with liberty to seek refund if the pending NHRC proceedings exonerate them.

> Therefore, there is no difficulty for the respondents in ordering recovery, since payment of interim compensation was a loss to the State. Such a pecuniary loss can always be directed to be recovered from the persons, who are responsible.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/29077/a-sundaram-n-sidhan-and-p-jayavel-appellant-hash-national-human-rights-commission-and-state-of-t/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/29077/pdf/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Salem Man, \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] v. National Human Rights Commission and State of Tamil Nadu
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-01-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2010) 01 MAD CK 0048', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/29077/a-sundaram-n-sidhan-and-p-jayavel-appellant-hash-national-human-rights-commission-and-state-of-t/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/29077/pdf/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC (K. Chandru, J.) dismissed W.P. 27281-27283/2009: recovery of Rs.50,000 compensation from salaries of 3 negligent policemen upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0020)

## Nagapattinam Man vs Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam and Others (CW-2010-0021)

**Record:** CW-2010-0021 (compiler id CWC-1283); case GAP3-85-012
**Title:** Nagapattinam Man vs Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.77 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2010-01-08 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-01-01 (2008)
**Place:** Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu; city town: Nagapattinam; police station or unit: Nagapattinam Town Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC s.59; Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagapattinam Town Police Station; Head Constable, Nagapattinam Town Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Nagapattinam man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5.1 lakh (Rs 5,13,195)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Sub-Inspector challenged the Government order recovering Rs.5,13,195 in equal shares from him and Head Constable toward compensation paid to the widow and minor children of a Nagapattinam man The court recalled that a Division Bench in habeas corpus proceedings had held both policemen responsible for a Nagapattinam man's illegal detention and consequent death, applying the last-seen principle to the missing detenu, and that the Supreme Court had dismissed the State's SLP. The court held that recovery of State-borne tort liability from the guilty officers' salaries was lawful. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In any event, when there is liability fixed on the State for payment of compensation, the petitioner, who was directly responsible for the State's liability to pay the amount, is also bound to make good the loss.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1902024/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Nagapattinam Man vs Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-01-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 513,195.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No.77 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1902024/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed SI's writ; upheld equal recovery of Rs.5,13,195 compensation for illegal detention and death of detenu.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0021)

## Tiruchirappalli Man v. State of Tamil Nadu \\& Ors. (CW-2010-0027)

**Record:** CW-2010-0027 (compiler id CWC-0835); case GAP2-38-004
**Title:** Tiruchirappalli Man v. State of Tamil Nadu \\& Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 17837 of 2008 / MANU/TN/0425/2010
**Judgment:** 2010-04-23 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-01-04 (2008)
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu; city town: Tiruchirappalli; police station or unit: Edamalaipattiputhur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Vigilance; Inspector of Police, Edamalaipattiputhur Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Tiruchirappalli man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Tiruchirappalli man, a retired Fire Officer, was picked up on 4 January 2008 and illegally detained at Edamalaipattiputhur police station, where he was beaten with lathis with his hands tied by a group led by DSP (Vigilance) \[name withheld\]. An FIR was registered only on 6 January 2008 before remand; the jail doctor recorded contusions on both hands at admission. He was hospitalised on 12 January 2008 and died on 22 January 2008. The court held the illegal arrest without D.K. Basu compliance and the lock-up torture proved by the jail admission record, accident register and hospital history sheet, and directed the State to pay Rs.5 lakhs within eight weeks, declining recovery from officers since the Government had dropped further action on the RDO report. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a strong case regarding the illegal arrest of her husband and the subsequent torture in the police lock-up before the admission to Central Prison. Moreover, the petitioner's husband was arrested without following the guidelines laid down in D.K.Basu case.

**Sources (2):** [legalindia.com](https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/prabavathy-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-april-2010); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/287052/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Tiruchirappalli Man v. State of Tamil Nadu \\& Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-04-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'MANU/TN/0425/2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/prabavathy-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-april-2010', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/287052/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC (K. Chandru, J.) allowed W.P. 17837/2008: illegal arrest/detention and lock-up torture proved; Rs.5L compensation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0027)

## Avadi Woman vs The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2010-0028)

**Record:** CW-2010-0028 (compiler id CWC-1279); case GAP3-85-008
**Title:** Avadi Woman vs The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.14781 of 2004
**Judgment:** 2010-04-27 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-01-23 (2004)
**Place:** Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu; city town: Avadi; police station or unit: F2 Tank Factory Police Station, Avadi; GC, CRPF, Avadi; force: central_armed
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 21; CrPC s.160
**Officers (gated display forms):** Subedar Major (Inspector of Police), GC, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai; Inspector of Police, Muthapudhupet, Incharge F2 Tank Factory Police Station, Avadi; Head Constable, Muthapudhupet, F2 Tank Factory Police Station, Avadi (3 in record)
**Victims:** Avadi woman; Avadi man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. On the night of 23.1.2004, local police led by Inspector with CRPF men led by Subedar raided the quarters of widower an Avadi man during a birthday dinner, abused and assaulted him, and dragged petitioner \[name withheld\], a postgraduate teacher, by her hair into a jeep, outraging her modesty. Both families with children were kept at F2 Tank Factory Police Station till 2 a.m. and freed without enquiry, and the incident was widely published, causing the petitioner public disgrace. The Court held the CrPC does not permit taking a woman to a police station at midnight for questioning and that moral policing and snooping into private affairs are unlawful. It directed CRPF respondents 2 and 3 to pay Rs.5,00,000 compensation within eight weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> That there was a complaint from neighbours was not borne out by records and the assault and outraging the modesty of the petitioner and public humiliation heaped on her is not denied by any counter affidavit either by the State Police and in the counter affidavit by the other respondents.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1841762/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 33
**display title redacted:** Avadi Woman vs The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-04-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No.14781 of 2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1841762/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held midnight raid, assault, modesty outrage and illegal detention proved; Rs.5 lakh compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0028)

## \[name withheld\] vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range and Another (CW-2010-0030)

**Record:** CW-2010-0030 (compiler id CWC-1281); case GAP3-85-010
**Title:** \[name withheld\] vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range and Another
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: N. Paul Vasanthakumar
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.1811 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2010-06-28 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-12-11 (1991)
**Place:** Tirupattur, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Vellore); city town: Tirupattur; police station or unit: Tirupattur Town Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882 s.36(E); TN Sandalwood Possession Rules 1970 r.3(1); Probation of Offenders Act 1958 s.4; Probation of Offenders Act 1958 s.12; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Grade-II Police Constable, Tirupattur Town Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Grade-II Constable of Tirupattur Town Police Station challenged his dismissal and the rejection of his reinstatement plea following his conviction for concealing sandalwood in a 1991 forest offence. The court found that the conviction under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act stood confirmed through appeal and revision, with only the sentence of imprisonment set aside in favour of release on probation. The court held that the department was entitled to remove a convicted constable and, applying Trikha Ram, treated the dismissal as a removal so as not to disqualify him from future employment. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Here, the conviction imposed against the petitioner is not set aside and the leniency was shown to the petitioner only in respect of sentence after noticing the fact of dismissal of the petitioner from his service.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87354/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-06-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P. No.1811 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87354/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed constable's writ; removal from service for a standing forest-offence conviction upheld (off-duty crime, borderline scope).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0030)

## Madurai Man v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (CW-2010-0008)

**Record:** CW-2010-0008 (compiler id CWC-0465); case SWCUSTOD-041
**Title:** Madurai Man v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: S. Manikumar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) No. 5272 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2010-08-06 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-12-04 (2004)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Madurai; police station or unit: Keeraithurai PS; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Keeraithurai PS, Madurai; Police Constable, Keeraithurai PS, Madurai (2 in record)
**Victims:** Madurai man, age 26 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) allowed Sangaiyya's writ for his 26-year-old son's custodial death at Keeraithurai police station in December 2004 after being picked up for drinking near a liquor shop. The Court awarded Rs 5 lakh to the legal heirs, structured as Rs 1 lakh each to the father and widow and Rs 3 lakh in fixed deposit for the minor children. It noted the Government had already ordered prosecution and departmental action against the responsible personnel. Recovery of the compensation from their salaries was directed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The said amount is further directed to be recovered from the salary of the police personnel, who were prima facie found by the government to be responsible for the death.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1109401/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 45
**display title redacted:** Madurai Man v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-08-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(MD) No. 5272 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1109401/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC awarded Rs 5L with recovery from salaries of responsible personnel.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0008)

## The Secretary, Home Department and Others vs Damayanthi and Others (CW-2010-0033)

**Record:** CW-2010-0033 (compiler id CWC-1276); case GAP3-85-005
**Title:** The Secretary, Home Department and Others vs Damayanthi and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** A.S. No.512 of 2010 and M.P. No.1 of 2010 (against O.S. No.35 of 2004, FTC-IV Bhavani)
**Judgment:** 2010-09-03 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-04-07 (1998)
**Place:** Erode, Tamil Nadu; city town: Bhavani; police station or unit: Armed Reserve Police, II Platoon, Erode (escort party); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CPC s.96; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Reserve Constable, Armed Reserve Police, II Platoon, Erode; Armed Reserve Constable, Armed Reserve Police, II Platoon, Erode (2 in record)
**Victims:** Bhavani man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Undertrial Jambu @ a Bhavani man (prisoner No.6030, Central Prison Coimbatore) was being escorted back from the JM Court, Bhavani on 7.4.1998 when armed miscreants dragged him from town bus route No.83 at Bhavani Flower Bazaar Junction and murdered him. His family sued for damages alleging negligence of the two Armed Reserve escorts, and the trial court decreed Rs.1 lakh with 7.5% interest against the State and both constables jointly and severally. The Court held an undertrial must be presumed innocent and the State vicariously liable for death caused by the carelessness and negligence of the two named escorts. It dismissed the State's appeal with Rs.10,000 costs, enhancing interest to 12% per annum.

> Even otherwise, the State having failed to secure the life of the deceased had become vicariously liable for his death which had occurred due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the two armed escorts, i.e. respondents 5 and 6.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1042476/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** The Secretary, Home Department and Others vs Damayanthi and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-09-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'A.S. No.512 of 2010 and M.P. No.1 of 2010 (against O.S. No.35 of 2004, FTC-IV Bhavani)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1042476/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld damages decree for undertrial killed due to negligence of two named armed escorts.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0033)

## Madurai Woman vs The State Human Rights Commission and Others (CW-2010-0034)

**Record:** CW-2010-0034 (compiler id CWC-1282); case GAP3-85-011
**Title:** Madurai Woman vs The State Human Rights Commission and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) No.424 of 2007
**Judgment:** 2010-09-14 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-01-01 (2003)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Madurai; police station or unit: Thirunagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 s.18; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai District (1 in record)
**Victims:** Madurai woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 15,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Woman Sub-Inspector challenged the SHRC recommendation of Rs.15,000 compensation to a Madurai woman, recoverable from her salary, for detaining a Madurai woman for four days at Thallakulam police station and beating her with a lathi during a 2003 murder investigation. The court found that she had clearly violated the Supreme Court's D.K. Basu directives, including the bar on bringing women to the station for enquiry and detaining them after sunset. Following earlier authority upholding identical SHRC-plus-recovery orders, the court dismissed the writ petition with no costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner had clearly violated the directives of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/811872/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Madurai Woman vs The State Human Rights Commission and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-09-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 15,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(MD) No.424 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/811872/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed woman SI's writ; upheld SHRC Rs.15,000 compensation with recovery for 4-day detention and lathi injuries.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0034)

## Anjugramam Woman vs Anjugramam Woman and Others (CW-2010-0035)

**Record:** CW-2010-0035 (compiler id CWC-1280); case GAP3-85-009
**Title:** Anjugramam Woman vs Anjugramam Woman and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) No.12316 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2010-09-29 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-08-20 (2008)
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu; city town: Anjugramam; police station or unit: Anjugramam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 s.18; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Anjugramam Police Station, Kanyakumari District (1 in record)
**Victims:** Anjugramam woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 30,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Sub-Inspector of Anjugramam Police Station challenged the SHRC recommendation of Rs.30,000 compensation to complainant \[name withheld\], recovery of the sum from his salary, and related disciplinary action. The court found that he had refused to receive an Anjugramam woman's cognizable complaint about the demolition of her compound wall, threatened to book her instead, and drove her out of the station, making the elderly woman run from pillar to post. The court held that the SHRC had given him full opportunity, disbelieved his bandobust-duty alibi and compromise document, and that the State, having accepted the recommendation, could recover the compensation from the delinquent officer under D.K. Basu. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner having harassed the first respondent by not even taking the complaint sent by the first respondent on file, made the old woman to run around helplessly.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139698/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Anjugramam Woman vs Anjugramam Woman and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-09-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 30,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(MD) No.12316 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139698/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed SI's writ; upheld SHRC Rs.30,000 compensation with salary recovery for refusing a cognizable complaint.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0035)

## Puliyangudi Man vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another (CW-2010-0039)

**Record:** CW-2010-0039 (compiler id CWC-1277); case GAP3-85-006
**Title:** Puliyangudi Man vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) No.4516 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2010-11-24 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-09-16 (1998)
**Place:** Tenkasi, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Tirunelveli); city town: Puliyangudi; police station or unit: Puliyangudi Police Station lock-up (Cr.No.277 of 1998); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Grade I Police Constable, Sankarankoil Police Station (on duty at Puliyangudi Police Station lock-up) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Puliyangudi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Accused a Puliyangudi man (Puliyangudi PS Cr.No.277 of 1998) hanged himself in the Puliyangudi lock-up on 16.09.1998 using his lungi as a noose. Grade I Constable faced departmental charges of letting the detainee keep the lungi, failing lock-up watch, fleeing after seeing him struggle, keeping no detention record and creating a false document, all held proved in PR No.125 of 2000. A Division Bench had ordered Rs.2 lakh compensation to widow \[name withheld\] (W.P. No.11569 of 1999, 2009 (3) MLJ 702), and the State fixed recovery shares on four policemen including Rs.33,684 on the petitioner. The Court held the petitioner had already suffered a penalty on the same score, the State was right in ordering recovery, and dismissed the writ. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case, the division bench of this court had found that all policemen including the petitioner were guilty and liability was fixed on the State to pay the sum of Rs.2 lakhs. Hence the State is bound to give effect to the order of this court.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1006682/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Puliyangudi Man vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-11-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(MD) No.4516 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1006682/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld recovery of lock-up-death compensation share from negligent constable (charges proved).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0039)

## Aruppukkottai Man and Others v. National Human Rights Commission and the State Government (CW-2010-0040)

**Record:** CW-2010-0040 (compiler id CWC-0836); case GAP2-38-008
**Title:** Aruppukkottai Man and Others v. National Human Rights Commission and the State Government
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) Nos. 1645 and 10479 of 2009 / (2010) 12 MAD CK 0112
**Judgment:** 2010-12-02 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-05-07 (2004)
**Place:** Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu; city town: Aruppukkottai; police station or unit: Pandalkudi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 s.17; Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 s.18(c)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Pandalkudi Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Pandalkudi Police Station; Head Constable, Pandalkudi Police Station; Head Constable, Pandalkudi Police Station; Police Constable Grade-II, Pandalkudi Police Station (5 in record)
**Victims:** Aruppukkottai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. On 7 May 2004, Pandalkudi police personnel led by SI dragged serving Army officer Captain Ganesan from his car and beat him with iron rods in a savage manner after an altercation at Danalakshmi lodge; his father and an advocate were also beaten. The RDO Aruppukkottai enquiry under PSO 151 found grievous injuries caused by excessive police force, and the NHRC found the assault and torture true, recommending Rs.1 lakh interim relief. The State paid Rs.1 lakh (G.Os. Ms. 232/2008 and 610/2008) and ordered recovery from the five policemen. The court dismissed their writ petitions, holding the recoveries from salaries shall continue without prejudice to the pending departmental action and NHRC proceedings.

> In fact, the Petitioners themselves have filed the deposition of the complainant \[name withheld\] in the typed set which clearly showed that the Petitioners had assaulted the serving personnel of the Indian Army.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/68974/v-kumaravel-and-others-appellant-hash-national-human-rights-commission-and-the-state-government-/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/68974/pdf/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Aruppukkottai Man and Others v. National Human Rights Commission and the State Government
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['outcome_type'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-12-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2010) 12 MAD CK 0112', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/68974/v-kumaravel-and-others-appellant-hash-national-human-rights-commission-and-the-state-government-/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/68974/pdf/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC (K. Chandru, J.) dismissed W.P.(MD) 1645/10479 of 2009: assault/torture of Captain Ganesan held true; salary recoveries of Rs.1L compensation to continue.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2010-0040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0040)

## Mehboob Batcha and Others vs State Rep. by Superintendent of Police (CW-2011-0004)

**Record:** CW-2011-0004 (compiler id CWC-0364); case SWCUSTOD-013
**Title:** Mehboob Batcha and Others vs State Rep. by Superintendent of Police
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Markandey Katju, J.; Gyan Sudha Misra, J.
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1511 of 2003 / (2011) 7 SCC 745
**Judgment:** 2011-03-29 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-05-30 (1992)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu (district at time: South Arcot); city town: Chidambaram; police station or unit: Annamalai Nagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 376(2)(a); IPC 343; IPC 348; IPC 323; IPC 330; IPC 354; IPC 218; IPC 220; IPC 109
**Officers (gated display forms):** Mehboob Batcha (Sub-Inspector); Sub-Inspector (SHO), Annamalai Nagar Police Station; A-3 (Head Constable); A-6 (Constable); A-8 (Constable); A-10 (Constable) (6 in record)
**Victims:** Chidambaram woman; Chidambaram man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 10.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of police personnel convicted for the brutal May-June 1992 atrocities at Annamalai Nagar Police Station, where suspect a man was tortured to death with lathis and his wife the complainant was subjected to barbaric custodial gang-rape. Affirming the concurrent convictions by the trial court and the Madras High Court, the bench led by Justice Markandey Katju held the testimonies of 37 prosecution witnesses, particularly the harrowing account of victim the complainant, to be credible beyond reasonable doubt. The Court strongly criticized the failure of lower courts and investigators to frame charges under Section 302 IPC for murder, observing that custodial killings by police are rarest of rare crimes deserving the death penalty, but upheld the 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentences under Section 376(2)(a) IPC as well as convictions for wrongful confinement and voluntarily causing hurt. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Both the trial Court and the High Court have found the appellants guilty and we see no reason to disagree with their verdict. To prove the charges the prosecution examined as many as 37 witnesses, and they have proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/421778/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26071083/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Mehboob Batcha and Others vs State Rep. by Superintendent of Police
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2011) 7 SCC 745', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2011-03-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2011) 7 SCC 745', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/421778/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26071083/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court upheld conviction of police personnel for gang rape of Padmini and custodial torture of deceased \[name withheld\] at Annamalai Nagar PS.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'the complainant'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0004)

## Keeriparai Woman vs State Represented By Its Secretary and Others (CW-2011-0031)

**Record:** CW-2011-0031 (compiler id CWC-1272); case GAP3-85-001
**Title:** Keeriparai Woman vs State Represented By Its Secretary and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: D. Hariparanthaman
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) No.8138 of 2008 & M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008
**Judgment:** 2011-07-01 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-11-30 (2005)
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu; city town: Keeriparai; police station or unit: Keeriparai Police Station (custody chain: Kadayanallur PS, Tirunelveli to Aralvaimozhi PS, Kanyakumari); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 342; IPC 344; IPC 193; IPC 218; IPC 506(ii); IPC 201 r/w 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil Town, Kanyakumari District; Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil; Inspector of Police, Vadaseri Police Station, Nagercoil; Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District; Head Constable No.1691, Aralvoimozhi Police Station; Head Constable, Aralvoimozhi Police Station; Head Constable, Aralvoimozhi Police Station; Head Constable No.1568, Aralvoimozhi Police Station; Head Constable, Aralvoimozhi Police Station; Inspector of Police, Aralvaimozhi Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Rajakamangalam Police Station; Inspector of Police, Pudur Police Station; Sub-Inspector (retired), Economic Offences (13 in record)
**Victims:** Keeriparai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 7.9 lakh (Rs 7,86,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Keeriparai man was picked up from his home by Kadayanallur police on 28.11.2005 and handed to Aralvaimozhi police the same day for enquiry in a dacoity case. The Court found he was kept in illegal custody at Keeriparai Police Station till 30.11.2005, tortured to death by third-degree methods, and his body disposed of to escape a murder charge, as established by the CBCID report, the RDO enquiry and G.O.Ms.No.1322. Relying on the State's own counter and the CBCID findings, the Court held his arrest and illegal custody proved and his human and fundamental rights grossly violated. It directed the State to pay Rs.7,86,000 compensation with 6% interest from 23.11.2009 within eight weeks, leaving the pending criminal trial (PRC No.58 of 2009) and civil remedies open.

> In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that human rights and fundamental rights of the husband of the petitioner was grossly violated.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1236320/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Keeriparai Woman vs State Represented By Its Secretary and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-07-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 786,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(MD) No.8138 of 2008 & M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1236320/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held custodial torture/death proved on CBCID record and ordered Rs.7.86 lakh compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0031)

## Chennai Resident vs The Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai (CW-2011-0037)

**Record:** CW-2011-0037 (compiler id CWC-1274); case GAP3-85-003
**Title:** Chennai Resident vs The Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.49373 of 2006 (O.A. No.2816 of 2001)
**Judgment:** 2011-09-08 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-03-02 (1987)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Chennai; police station or unit: Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station (Cr.No.45/87); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act s.5(2); PC Act s.5(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Greater Chennai Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chennai resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Inspector demanded Rs.10,000 for deleting accused \[name withheld\]'s name from PEW Cr.No.45/87 and accepted the first instalment of Rs.5,000 on 02.03.1987. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C. No.1/89 with one year RI and fine per count, and the conviction was confirmed by the High Court in Crl.A. No.25 of 2001. The Commissioner dismissed him from service for an offence involving moral turpitude under PSO 59(1). The Court held that only the sentence, not the conviction, had been suspended on appeal, and dismissed the writ, upholding the dismissal while protecting salary earned under interim orders from recovery.

> Considering the fact that the petitioner got involved in a corruption case which was found proved by the Special Court and confirmed by this Court in the Criminal appeal and the petitioner being a member of the uniformed service he cannot be shown any leniency in such a matter.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124240723/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** Chennai Resident vs The Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-09-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P. No.49373 of 2006 (O.A. No.2816 of 2001)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124240723/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld dismissal of Inspector convicted of bribery; corruption conviction confirmed on appeal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0037)

## Palayamkottai Man and Others vs State of Tamil Nadu and Another (CW-2011-0039)

**Record:** CW-2011-0039 (compiler id CWC-1275); case GAP3-85-004
**Title:** Palayamkottai Man and Others vs State of Tamil Nadu and Another
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. Nos.4657, 9674, 9675 and 11119 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2011-09-27 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-01-01 (2002)
**Place:** Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu; city town: Palayamkottai; police station or unit: Palayamkottai Crime Police Station, Tirunelveli City; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 s.18
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Palayamkottai Crime Police Station, Tirunelveli City; Grade I Police Constable, Palayamkottai Crime Police Station, Tirunelveli City; Head Constable, Palayamkottai Crime Police Station, Tirunelveli City; Head Constable, Palayamkottai Crime Police Station, Tirunelveli City (4 in record)
**Victims:** Palayamkottai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Palayamkottai man of Eral complained to the NHRC that Palayamkottai Crime Station personnel foisted a false idol-theft case on him and pressured him to part with Rs.40,000. The NHRC found a prima facie human-rights violation and directed Rs.50,000 interim relief, which the State paid and ordered recovered equally from the seven policemen. Departmental charges were held proved against the personnel, who suffered postponement of increment for one year. The Court held policemen bound to honour NHRC interim compensation orders and dismissed all four writ petitions, sustaining the recovery of Rs.7,143 each. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Excepting the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.4657 of 2009, in all other cases, in respect of the misconduct, an enquiry has been held and minor penalty has been imposed. Therefore, for any loss caused to the State, the policemen who were responsible for the loss are also bound to re-compensate the State for the same.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169413308/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Palayamkottai Man and Others vs State of Tamil Nadu and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-09-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. Nos.4657, 9674, 9675 and 11119 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169413308/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC sustained recovery from policemen of NHRC interim relief in false-case/extortion violation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0039)

## Chunambedu Man v. The National Human Rights Commission and Ors. (CW-2011-0040)

**Record:** CW-2011-0040 (compiler id CWC-0839); case GAP2-38-009
**Title:** Chunambedu Man v. The National Human Rights Commission and Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 17327 of 2011 / (2011) 09 MAD CK 0309
**Judgment:** 2011-09-28 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-02-15 (2008)
**Place:** Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Kanchipuram); city town: Chunambedu; police station or unit: Chunambedu Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act s.4(1)(i); Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act s.4(1-A); Constitution Art 21; Constitution Art 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Woman Sub-Inspector, Chunambedu Police Station; Head Constable, Chunambedu Police Station; Deputy Superintendent of Police (former Inspector), Chunambedu Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Chunambedu Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Chunambedu Police Station; Police Constable, Chunambedu Police Station (6 in record)
**Victims:** Chunambedu man, age 42 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Chunambedu man (42), arrested on 12 February 2008 in a Prohibition Act case by Chunambedu police, told his wife on 14 February 2008 that he had been tortured, and was brought dead to Royapettah Hospital from Puzhal prison on 15 February 2008. The SDM enquiry under PSO 151 found he was tortured with third-degree methods before prison admission with a false no-injury entry, recommending departmental and criminal action against six policemen. The State paid Rs.3 lakhs compensation (Rs.1 lakh plus Rs.2 lakhs on NHRC direction) and issued a show-cause notice to recover Rs.50,000 from each of the six. The court dismissed the policemen writ petitions, holding the recoveries shall continue without prejudice to departmental action and NHRC proceedings. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The conduct of the policemen in treating an under trial and applying a third degree method against him cannot be condoned.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/615283/d-kannagi-appellant-hash-the-national-human-rights-commission-the-state-human-rights-commission-/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/615283/pdf/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Chunambedu Man v. The National Human Rights Commission and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['outcome_type'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-09-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2011) 09 MAD CK 0309', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/615283/d-kannagi-appellant-hash-the-national-human-rights-commission-the-state-human-rights-commission-/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/615283/pdf/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC (K. Chandru, J.) dismissed the policemen writs: third-degree torture of a Chunambedu man held proved; Rs.50,000 recovery each toward Rs.3L compensation to continue.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0040)

## Udagamandalam Man and Others vs The State and Others (CW-2011-0042)

**Record:** CW-2011-0042 (compiler id CWC-1273); case GAP3-85-002
**Title:** Udagamandalam Man and Others vs The State and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.26544 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2011-09-30 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-08-15 (2002)
**Place:** The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu; city town: Udagamandalam (Ooty); police station or unit: Town West Police Station, Ooty; Ooty Sub-Jail; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Town West Police Station, Ooty; Constable, Ooty police, Nilgiris District; Constable, Ooty police, Nilgiris District; Police personnel, Ooty police, Nilgiris District; Prison Warden, Ooty Sub-Jail; Prison Warden, Ooty Sub-Jail (6 in record)
**Victims:** Udagamandalam man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Undertrial Ramasamy @ a Udagamandalam man, lodged in Ooty Sub-Jail in Cr.No.204 of 2002, fell sick on the morning of 15.8.2002 and died about 10.45 a.m. after being left without timely medical treatment. The Court relied on the RDO Coonoor enquiry, which found injuries inflicted in the presence of police personnel, falsified jail-admission records, and a two-hour denial of treatment for chest pain. It held the subordinate police and jail officials solely responsible for the loss of life through callous indifference and the State vicariously liable. Enhancing compensation to Rs.5 lakh total, it directed the Rs.4 lakh balance paid within 12 weeks, recoverable from the delinquent policemen and wardens. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As long as the petitioner's husband was an under trial, his life cannot be taken away by such callous indifference of officials of police department as well as officials of Sub Jail, Ooty.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110058172/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Udagamandalam Man and Others vs The State and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-09-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No.26544 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110058172/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held police/jail officials solely responsible for undertrial custodial death; Rs.5 lakh total compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0042](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0042)

## Pollachi Man and \[name withheld\] vs The Secretary to Government & Ors. (CW-2012-0028)

**Record:** CW-2012-0028 (compiler id CWC-1288); case GAP3-86-002
**Title:** Pollachi Man and \[name withheld\] vs The Secretary to Government & Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. Nos. 8910 and 9106 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2012-04-10 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-06-13 (1997)
**Place:** Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu; city town: Pollachi; police station or unit: Pollachi West Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.21; Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Pollachi West Police Station, Coimbatore District; Inspector of Police, Coastal Security Group (formerly Sub-Inspector, Pollachi West Police Station) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Pollachi man, age 40 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** fine; Rs 4.5 lakh (Rs 4,50,000)
**Sentence type:** fine (fine)

The Madras High Court dismissed writ petitions by Special Sub-Inspector and Inspector challenging the recovery of Rs.1,93,548 and Rs.2,56,452 from their salaries toward the compensation the State paid for the 1997 custodial death of lorry driver \[name withheld\] at Pollachi West police station. The court held that the findings of third-degree torture recorded in the earlier compensation judgment (W.P. No.19702 of 2000) had become final and could not be collaterally challenged. It held that the officers' acquittal in the criminal trial and the outcomes of departmental proceedings did not debar recovery, since the State, having paid compensation on vicarious liability, was entitled to be indemnified by the officers whose liability was direct. Both writ petitions were dismissed and the recovery orders sustained. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is not as if the petitioners can indulge in illegal acts for which the State has only vicarious liability, whereas the liability of the petitioners is direct.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7349705/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** Pollachi Man and \[name withheld\] vs The Secretary to Government & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-04-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 450,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. Nos. 8910 and 9106 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7349705/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed officers' writs; recovery of custodial-death compensation from two policemen upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0028)

## Chennai Man, \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] vs The Secretary to Government & Ors. (CW-2012-0029)

**Record:** CW-2012-0029 (compiler id CWC-1289); case GAP3-86-003
**Title:** Chennai Man, \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] vs The Secretary to Government & Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K. Chandru
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 21806 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2012-04-10 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-06-21 (1993)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Chennai; police station or unit: E-2 Royapettah Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.21; Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, E-2 Royapettah Police Station, Chennai; Police Constable, E-2 Royapettah Police Station, Chennai; Grade-I Police Constable, E-2 Royapettah Police Station, Chennai (3 in record)
**Victims:** Chennai man, age 24 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** fine; Rs 3.8 lakh (Rs 3,80,000)
**Sentence type:** fine (fine)

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition of three police constables and upheld the recovery of Rs.76,000 from each toward the Rs.3,80,000 compensation the State paid to the mother of a Chennai man, aged 24, who was beaten to death in the custody of E-2 Royapettah police station in June 1993. The court held that the petitioners, who were heard as party-respondents in the compensation writ (W.P. No.14879 of 1994), had let the findings and the recovery direction become final without appeal. It held that neither their acquittal in the criminal trial, where witnesses turned hostile, nor the setting aside of departmental penalties debarred recovery, since public-law compensation serves a different purpose. The writ petition was dismissed and the recovery sustained. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This court clearly found that the petitioners were responsible for inflicting injuries against the deceased \[name withheld\].

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159929378/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Chennai Man, \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] vs The Secretary to Government & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-04-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 380,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 21806 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159929378/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed constables' writ; Rs.76,000 recovery each toward custodial-death compensation upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0029)

## Madurai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (CW-2012-0010)

**Record:** CW-2012-0010 (compiler id CWC-0365); case TAMILN-001
**Title:** Madurai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: S. Manikumar, J.
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 15794 of 2003
**Judgment:** 2012-07-02 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-04-17 (2003)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Madurai; police station or unit: Samayanallur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Article 21; Constitution of India Article 226; IPC 324; Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 s.30
**Officers (gated display forms):** M. Kalifulla (Inspector of Police) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Madurai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court held that Inspector M. Kalifulla of Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai, illegally detained petitioner \[name withheld\] from 17.04.2003 to 21.04.2003 and subjected him to third-degree methods and brutal custodial assault resulting in a fractured right thumb and severe physical injuries. Justice S. Manikumar observed that custodians of law and order must not become depredators of civil liberties, finding that police violence violated the petitioner's fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21. On principles of vicarious liability, the Court directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay Rs 1,00,000 as compensation to the victim, with liberty to recover the entire sum from the delinquent officer. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As the 5th respondent has been found to have committed the act of illegal detention and caused injuries, he is liable to pay the amount to the petitioner.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110762246/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/custodial-torture-madras-hc-upholds-the-decision-of-compensation-151953)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 57
**display title redacted:** Madurai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-07-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 15794 of 2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110762246/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/custodial-torture-madras-hc-upholds-the-decision-of-compensation-151953', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court held police inspector guilty of illegal detention and custodial torture, awarding Rs 1,00,000 compensation recoverable from the officer.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0010)

## Virudhunagar Man v. Government of Tamil Nadu (CW-2012-0020)

**Record:** CW-2012-0020 (compiler id CWC-0737); case SWILLEGA-097
**Title:** Virudhunagar Man v. Government of Tamil Nadu
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: S. Manikumar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) No. 1073 of 2007
**Judgment:** 2012-09-04 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-06-14 (2003)
**Place:** Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu; city town: Virudhunagar; police station or unit: District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar; Head Constable, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Virudhunagar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Virudhunagar man, a vegetable vendor, was twice seized from his home by DCB officers seeking to extract a confession to a 2002 theft, beaten at a guest house and various stations, and held in illegal custody on 14-15 June 2003, sustaining injuries that caused foot drop in his right leg. His wife's telegrams to senior officers, her habeas corpus petition and his complaint to the RDO Sivakasi corroborated the detention, and hospital records showed he told doctors at the earliest point that the police assaulted him. The Court rejected the RDO Aruppukottai's clean-chit report and the State's denial, holding the State vicariously responsible for the human-rights violation and torture. It allowed the writ petition and directed the State to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation within one month, with liberty to recover from the responsible policemen. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> There are materials to arrive at a conclusion that the authorities have failed to consider the medical evidence in proper perspective. State is vicariously responsible for the violation of human rights and physical torture by the police.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56768587/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 37
**display title redacted:** Virudhunagar Man v. Government of Tamil Nadu
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-09-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(MD) No. 1073 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56768587/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held illegal custody + torture proved by medical evidence, awarded Rs 1 lakh; matches outcome.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2012-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0020)

## Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. v. \[name withheld\] (CW-2012-0037)

**Record:** CW-2012-0037 (compiler id CWC-1118); case GAP3-131-001
**Title:** Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. v. \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K.S. Radhakrishnan; Dipak Misra
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 8513 of 2012 / (2013) 1 SCC 598; AIR 2013 SC 14
**Judgment:** 2012-11-30 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-07-09 (1999)
**Place:** Tenkasi, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Tirunelveli); city town: Tenkasi; police station or unit: Tenkasi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 509; Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Eve-Teasing Act 1998 s.4
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (PC 388), Armed Reserve, Palayamkottai (1 in record)
**Victims:** Tenkasi woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

On 9 July 1999 the respondent, an Armed Reserve police constable on Courtallam-season bandobust duty, went to Tenkasi bus stand in a drunken state and eve-teased a married woman waiting with her husband, threatening to book a case against the husband; he was taken into custody by head constables on night duty and dismissed from service on 4 January 2000 after disciplinary proceedings. He was acquitted in the criminal case under Section 509 IPC and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Eve-Teasing Act, and the Madras High Court set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The Supreme Court held the criminal acquittal was on technical grounds rather than honourable and no bar to the departmental penalty, allowed the State appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and restored the dismissal. The Court additionally issued eight directions to States and Union Territories to curb eve-teasing. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We are in this case concerned with a situation where a member of the law enforcement agency, a police personnel, himself was caught in the act of eve-teasing of a married woman leading to criminal and disciplinary proceeding, ending in his dismissal from service, the legality of which is the subject matter of this appeal.

**Sources (2):** [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/39774.pdf); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af1be4b0149711415a01)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 3
**display title redacted:** Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. v. \[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-11-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2013) 1 SCC 598; AIR 2013 SC 14', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/39774.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af1be4b0149711415a01', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC allowed State appeal; dismissal of constable for drunk on-duty eve-teasing restored.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0037)

## Virudhachalam Man vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2013-0023)

**Record:** CW-2013-0023 (compiler id CWC-0841); case GAP2-39-004
**Title:** Virudhachalam Man vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: T. Raja
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.30298 of 2005
**Judgment:** 2013-04-02 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-11-07 (2004)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu; city town: Virudhachalam; police station or unit: Virudhachalam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (4 in record)
**Victims:** Virudhachalam man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5.9 lakh (Rs 5,90,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A. Selvi, widow of a Virudhachalam man, sought compensation after her husband was assaulted by an SI and constables at Virudhachalam bus stand on 07.11.2004, detained, and found dead on 08.11.2004. Adopting the RDO report (25.04.2005) and the SHRC order (02.04.2007) holding it a custodial death with grievous injuries at police hands, the court held it an admitted fact that a Virudhachalam man died only due to assault and torture by police personnel in custody. It held the SHRC's Rs.1,50,000 meagre and enhanced compensation to Rs.5,90,000 (multiplier method), directing the State to deposit the Rs.4,40,000 balance within two months. On appeal (W.A. No.2389/2013, 03.09.2018), the Division Bench declined interest, noting a medical report attributing death to metabolic changes, but treated the Rs.1,50,000 already paid as interest so the full Rs.5,90,000 stands. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> as in this case, it is also an admitted fact that the deceased \[name withheld\] died only due to the assault and torture made by the police personals during the police custody, as a result, the poor family of the said deceased, having his wife, two minor sons and a minor daughter is left without a breadwinner.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70958340/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85818533/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Virudhachalam Man vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-04-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 590,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No.30298 of 2005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70958340/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85818533/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs.5.9L compensation for custodial death; 2018 DB retained award (no interest; death also medically attributed to metabolic changes).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0023)

## M. Ranjani vs The Home Secretary and Others (CW-2013-0024)

**Record:** CW-2013-0024 (compiler id CWC-0843); case GAP2-39-006
**Title:** M. Ranjani vs The Home Secretary and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K.N. Basha; P. Devadass
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.1293 of 2011 and H.C.P. No.43 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2013-04-15 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-01-14 (2011)
**Place:** Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Thirunelveli); city town: Thisayanvilai; police station or unit: Thisayanvilai Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 366-A; IPC 224; IPC 304-A; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named
**Victims:** Thisayanvilai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Thisayanvilai man @ a Thisayanvilai man was arrested on 14.01.2011 in Cr. No.344/2010 (s.366-A IPC, Thisayanvilai P.S.), remanded by the JM Ambasamudram, and died the same day while in escort-police custody being taken to Borstal School, Nanguneri. The Division Bench recorded the CBCID status reports' categorical admission that he died in police custody due to the careless, callous and lethargic attitude of the escort officials, and held his family entitled to compensation. It directed the State to pay Rs.5,00,000 within six weeks. Since the cause of death (alleged road accident vs custodial torture) remained unproved amid differing post-mortem reports, it transferred investigation in Cr. Nos.344/2010 and 11/2011 to the CBI under a DSP-rank officer. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> admittedly the victim boy died while he was in police custody and it is also specifically and categorically admitted in the two Status Reports filed by the investigating officer that the victim died due to the lethargic, careless and callous attitude of the escort police officials.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195078954/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** M. Ranjani vs The Home Secretary and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-04-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No.1293 of 2011 and H.C.P. No.43 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195078954/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs.5L compensation for death in escort-police custody due to admitted police negligence; CBI probe ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0024)

## Mettur Man and Others vs The Secretary and Others (CW-2013-0026)

**Record:** CW-2013-0026 (compiler id CWC-0845); case GAP2-39-008
**Title:** Mettur Man and Others vs The Secretary and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K.N. Basha; P. Devadass
**Case number / citation:** H.C.P. No.897 of 2007
**Judgment:** 2013-04-22 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-06-11 (2007)
**Place:** Salem, Tamil Nadu; city town: Mettur; police station or unit: Karumalaikudal Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 341; IPC 147; IPC 148; IPC 188; IPC 332; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Karumalaikudal Police Station, Mettur, Salem District; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mettur, Salem District (2 in record)
**Victims:** Mettur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Bar leaders filed this habeas corpus petition for Advocate a Mettur man of Mettur, detained after an 11.06.2007 road-roko and brutally beaten in custody with lathis and boots, as recorded in the Legal Services Authority report dated 03.07.2007. The Division Bench rejected the police claim of a mild lathi-charge, holding the materials established custodial torture, and noted the foisted case against him (S.C. No.166/2010) had been quashed on 10.01.2011 as abuse of process. It directed the State to pay Rs.3,00,000 compensation within eight weeks, holding it the State's bounden duty to compensate custodial-torture victims adequately. It also directed the DGP to take appropriate action against the erring officials in a manner known to law. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As the victim, Mr.a Mettur man, suffered custodial torture at the hands of the police officials while he was in the police custody, it is the bounden duty of the State to compensate him adequately and reasonably.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102387875/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 21
**display title redacted:** Mettur Man and Others vs The Secretary and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-04-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'H.C.P. No.897 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102387875/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Custodial torture of advocate established; Rs.3L compensation plus DGP-directed action against erring officials.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0026)

## Padalur Man vs Superintendent of Police and Others (CW-2013-0028)

**Record:** CW-2013-0028 (compiler id CWC-0844); case GAP2-39-007
**Title:** Padalur Man vs Superintendent of Police and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: Elipe Dharma Rao; N. Kirubakaran
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No.2578 of 2003
**Judgment:** 2013-06-18 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-08-01 (1995)
**Place:** Perambalur, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Tiruchirappalli); city town: Padalur; police station or unit: Padalur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 366; CrPC 174
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Padalur Police Station, Perambalur District; Police Constable, Padalur Police Station, Perambalur District; Police Constable, Perambalur District; Police Driver, Padalur Police Station, Perambalur District (4 in record)
**Victims:** Padalur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Anjalam, widow of a Padalur man, alleged her husband was tortured and killed in August 1995 by Padalur police and the death staged as suicide by hanging from a neem tree (body found 04.08.1995; post-mortem placed death between 02-03.08.1995). The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge order, quashed the RDO/IG suicide findings, and found the police party headed by Inspector with P\[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] and driver \[name withheld\] answerable for the murder. It directed the State to pay Rs.5,00,000 compensation within six weeks, recoverable as Rs.2,00,000 from the Inspector and Rs.1,00,000 each from the other three, and transferred Cr. No.171/1995 (Kunnam P.S.) to the CBI for fresh investigation. The Court noted that no action had yet been initiated against the officers (para 20). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Since it is our finding that the police party headed by the third respondent and accompanied by the respondents 4 to 6 are answerable to the murder of the deceased, we direct the second respondent, Government of Tamil Nadu, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/= (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to the appellant as compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143341646/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 28
**display title redacted:** Padalur Man vs Superintendent of Police and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-06-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.A. No.2578 of 2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143341646/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Police party held answerable for custodial murder staged as suicide; Rs.5L compensation with recovery from 4 officers; CBI probe.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0028)

## Seithur Man and Others vs M. Guruvammal and Others (CW-2013-0031)

**Record:** CW-2013-0031 (compiler id CWC-0842); case GAP2-39-005
**Title:** Seithur Man and Others vs M. Guruvammal and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: R. Banumathi; T.S. Sivagnanam
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No.3689 of 2002 and W.A. No.SR101292 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2013-08-12 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-12-30 (1989)
**Place:** Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu; city town: Seithur; police station or unit: Seithur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Seithur Police Station; Constable, Seithur Police Station; Constable, Seithur Police Station (3 in record)
**Victims:** Seithur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Seithur man was picked up on 23.12.1989 by the Seithur SI and constables, kept in illegal custody without production before a Magistrate, and beaten to death on 30.12.1989; his body was found hanging from a tree on 02.01.1990. The Division Bench recorded the post-mortem showing 15 injuries caused by lathis and needles poked near the genitals, and the RDO-cum-Executive Magistrate report, holding the officers had no explanation for the custodial injuries. It dismissed the appeals of SI and Constables and \[name withheld\], upholding the 03.10.2001 order directing the State to pay Rs.2,50,000 with 6% interest from 01.01.1990 (plus Rs.6,000 costs) and to recover it in equal moieties from the three officers' salaries. The compensation award itself had become final when the State's appeal (W.A. No.557/2006) was dismissed on 10.07.2006. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Learned single Judge elaborately considered the evidence and materials placed and arrived at the conclusion that death was due to torture by the Appellants and 8th Respondent and since the Appellants and 8th Respondent were incharge, the learned Judge has rightly ordered that the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- be recovered from Appellants and 8th Respondent in equal moieties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned single Judge and the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165216180/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Seithur Man and Others vs M. Guruvammal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-08-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 250,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.A. No.3689 of 2002 and W.A. No.SR101292 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165216180/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Officers' appeals dismissed; Rs.2.5L custodial-death compensation recoverable from SI and two constables in equal moieties.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0031)

## Tiruvallur Man vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2013-0034)

**Record:** CW-2013-0034 (compiler id CWC-0846); case GAP2-39-009
**Title:** Tiruvallur Man vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: N. Paul Vasanthakumar
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.16352 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2013-09-20 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-06-16 (2012)
**Place:** Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Thiruvallur); police station or unit: Sholavaram Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Ponneri Police Station, Thiruvallur District; Sub-Inspector of Police, Minjur Police Station, Thiruvallur District; Sub-Inspector of Police, Sholavaram Police Station, Thiruvallur District; Sub-Inspector of Police, Sholavaram Police Station, Thiruvallur District (4 in record)
**Victims:** Tiruvallur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. G. Barathi petitioned for her son \[name withheld\], seized from home at 2.30 a.m. on 16.06.2012 by Sholavaram/Minjur police, beaten with lathis and boots, and held in illegal custody with a false case fabricated against him. On the court's direction the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur held a judicial enquiry (statements 28.01.2013, station inspection 19.02.2013, report 22.04.2013), and the Duty Assistant Surgeon's report showed treatment in custody from 06-22.07.2012. The court held assault and ill-treatment in police custody established and awarded Rs.50,000 compensation payable by the State within four weeks. It further directed a departmental enquiry to fix liability on those in charge at arrest and interrogation, with proportional recovery from the erring officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Considering the overall aspects in this case, I am of the view that the son of the petitioner viz., a Tiruvallur man, who was assaulted and ill-treated in police custody, due to which he sustained injuries, for which he took treatment in custody from 6.7.2012 to 22.7.2012 as per the report of the Duty Assistant Surgeon, annexed along with the report of the Principal District Judge, is entitled to get compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the State Government, viz., first respondent.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23631535/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Tiruvallur Man vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-09-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No.16352 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23631535/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Custodial assault established via judicial enquiry; Rs.50,000 compensation plus departmental enquiry with recovery.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2013-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0034)

## Madurai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2014-0003)

**Record:** CW-2014-0003 (compiler id CWC-0369); case TAMILN-005
**Title:** Madurai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K.B.K. Vasuki, J.
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 33001 of 2002
**Judgment:** 2014-04-15 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-09-19 (2000)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Madurai; police station or unit: Pudur Police Station (H2 Surya Nagar Police Station); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Article 21; Constitution of India Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Pudur Police Station; Sub-Inspector of Police, Pudur Police Station; Head Constable, Pudur Police Station; Police Constable Grade I, Pudur Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Madurai man, age 42 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court awarded Rs 5,00,000 total compensation to the family of 42-year-old tailor a Madurai man, who was beaten in the course of enquiry at Pudur Police Station, Madurai, on 19.9.2000, handed over unconscious to his family, and died in hospital at 11 pm on 20.9.2000 (paras 2, 8). Justice K.B.K. Vasuki recorded that the post-mortem certificate showed 20 antemortem injuries plus chest contusion, temporal contusion and subdural hemorrhage (para 7), and held police personnel 'solely responsible for causing injuries, which are the major cause for the death' (para 10). The respondents contended death was due to ethyl alcohol poisoning and injuries sustained outside the station at Pudur bus stand (para 4). Citing Supreme Court precedents on State liability for Article 21 violations, the Court directed the State to deposit the remaining Rs 4,00,000 (after adjusting Rs 1,00,000 interim relief) for investment in bank deposits for the widow and two children (paras 12-13).

> this court is of the view that this is a fit case, wherein, the petitioners are entitled to get compensation for the death of their bread winner a Madurai man, due to police excess.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145507177/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Madurai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-04-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 33001 of 2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145507177/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation for custodial death of tailor a Madurai man following severe beating at Pudur PS.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0003)

## P. Rajakumari vs The Additional Director General of Police (Prisons) and Others (CW-2014-0030)

**Record:** CW-2014-0030 (compiler id CWC-1287); case GAP3-86-001
**Title:** P. Rajakumari vs The Additional Director General of Police (Prisons) and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: V. Ramasubramanian
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.23320 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2014-09-24 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-08-01 (2014)
**Place:** Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu; city town: Udumalpet; police station or unit: Udumalpet Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Udumalpet woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. P. Rajakumari sought a judicial-magistrate inquiry and independent investigation into the alleged custodial rape and torture of her mother \[name withheld, survivor\] at Udumalpet police station in August 2014. The court held there was enough material to warrant registration of an FIR without any prior magisterial/RDO fact-finding (para 36), noting a three-week-old fracture of the distal phalanx found only on the court-ordered referral, coinciding with the admitted period of police custody (para 46). The court directed the CBI Joint Director to record the victim statement, register an FIR against the officers she identifies, entrust investigation to an officer not below Deputy Commissioner of Police rank, and file a report within three months (para 50, dirs 1-3). It ordered Rs.2 lakh interim compensation within two weeks, recoverable from those responsible upon conviction (para 50, dir 5). The State, through the Additional Advocate General, opposed entrusting investigation to any outside agency and sought a PSO-151 or superior-police-officer enquiry instead (paras 38-39). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It may also be necessary to award interim compensation to the petitioner's mother, in view of the fact (1) that injuries on her person are now established (2) that even as per the recording made by the Medical Officer of the Central Prison at Coimbatore, the injuries are allegedly inflicted on her while she was in police custody and (3) that but for the referral made by this Court to the Multi Super Speciality Hospital, even the fracture in her hand could never have been found out.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126779330/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 46
**display title redacted:** P. Rajakumari vs The Additional Director General of Police (Prisons) and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-09-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No.23320 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126779330/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC ordered CBI FIR plus Rs.2 lakh interim compensation; custodial torture medically corroborated, rape allegation sent to CBI probe.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0030)

## Kandhili Man vs The State (CW-2014-0041)

**Record:** CW-2014-0041 (compiler id CWC-0847); case GAP2-39-010
**Title:** Kandhili Man vs The State
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: S. Nagamuthu
**Case number / citation:** Crl.O.P. Nos.26847 and 26948 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2014-12-23 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-09-05 (2014)
**Place:** Tirupattur, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Vellore); city town: Kandhili; police station or unit: Kandhili Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** NDPS Act 1985 s.8(c) r/w s.20(b)(c)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Kandhili Police Station; Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandhili Police Station; Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandhili Police Station (3 in record)
**Victims:** Kandhili man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Justice S. Nagamuthu held that Kandhili police kept engineering professor a Kandhili man in illegal custody between 7 and 11 September 2014 (SP report finding, para 16; the petitioner had alleged custody from 5 September, para 9) and then falsely implicated him in a ganja case (Crime No.240 of 2014), in which he spent about 15 days in prison (para 16). The court accepted the fresh-investigation report of the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore-Rural, which found the case not true (para 15), the Government agreeing with the report (para 18), and quashed the FIR (paras 29-30). As a warning against registration of false cases, the court awarded Rs.1,00,000 token compensation payable by the State within three months, and directed the DGP to forward the order to all district SPs (para 30). It left further action against Inspector to the Government and declined to order registration of a criminal case against the officers (para 20). The FIR account (secret information, 1.5 kg ganja seizure, arrest at noon on 11.09.2014) is set out at para 6; the Advocate General pleaded the young Inspector may be pardoned (para 18). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Having regard to the said settled position of law, I am of the view, in the instant case, since the State is not in issue that there was violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner by implicating him in a false case and by detaining him illegally, though the petitioner has got a private law remedy to claim compensation, that will not deter this court to order for payment of compensation.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11341760/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 28
**display title redacted:** Kandhili Man vs The State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-12-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Crl.O.P. Nos.26847 and 26948 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11341760/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC quashed false NDPS FIR, held illegal detention plus false implication proved, awarded Rs.1L compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0041](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0041)

## Nagapattinam Police Grade II Police Constable (Driver) vs The Superintendent of Police and Others (CW-2015-0025)

**Record:** CW-2015-0025 (compiler id CWC-0849); case GAP2-39-012
**Title:** Nagapattinam Police Grade II Police Constable (Driver) vs The Superintendent of Police and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: K.K. Sasidharan
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.14011 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2015-03-16 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-01-01 (2008)
**Place:** Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu; city town: Nagapattinam; police station or unit: Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Record Bureau, Nagapattinam; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 379; IPC 427
**Officers (gated display forms):** Grade II Police Constable (Driver), Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Record Bureau, Nagapattinam (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Grade-II constable driver \[name withheld\], Armed Reserve Nagapattinam attached to the DSP office, District Crime Record Bureau, was dismissed after Crime No.518 of 2008 (Velipalayam PS, IPC ss.379/427) and a departmental enquiry in which he did not participate and which examined PWs 1-3 ex parte (paras 2, 6); the DGP later converted the dismissal into compulsory retirement as a concession (paras 2, 8). Justice K.K. Sasidharan refused to interfere, treating the conversion itself as leniency (para 11). The petitioner relied on his subsequent acquittal in C.C.No.193 of 2009, but the court held a benefit-of-doubt acquittal does not undo departmental findings given the different standard of proof (paras 7-9). The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the compulsory retirement intact (para 12). Note: the misconduct (drunken fracas and forcible taking of money at Velipalayam bus stand, paras 3, 6) is criminality by an officer rather than an on-duty abuse of police power. The respondents' case (counter affidavit; AGP contending maximum punishment was commensurate) is at paras 3 and 5. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Director General of Police took a lenient view and modified the punishment. The modification of punishment itself was a concession. Such being the position, I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60770303/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Nagapattinam Police Grade II Police Constable (Driver) vs The Superintendent of Police and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-03-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P. No.14011 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60770303/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed constable-driver writ; compulsory retirement (converted from dismissal) for criminal misconduct stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0025)

## Murappanadu Man and Another vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2015-0029)

**Record:** CW-2015-0029 (compiler id CWC-0848); case GAP2-39-011
**Title:** Murappanadu Man and Another vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: S. Nagamuthu
**Case number / citation:** Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.4225 and 7759 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2015-07-15 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-01-01 (2002)
**Place:** Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu; city town: Murappanadu; police station or unit: Murappanadu Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 302; IPC 201; CrPC 482
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, District Special Branch, Thoothukudi; Superintendent of Police, Special Commander, VIth Battalion, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore; Inspector of Police (Retired), Vangodu, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District; Sub-Inspector of Police, Valanadu, Srivaigundam Taluk, Thoothukudi; Inspector of Police, Q Branch, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District; Sub-Inspector of Police, Earal Police Station, Thoothukudi District; Head Constable, Thattarmadam Police Station, Thoothukudi District; Inspector of Police, Prohibition Wing, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District (8 in record)
**Victims:** Murappanadu man; Murappanadu man (4 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 16 lakh (Rs 16,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Justice S. Nagamuthu found that four men were implicated as accused in the 2002 Murappanadu murder case (Crime No.147 of 2002), arrested, detained in prison for a considerable time and made to undergo the ordeal of trial in S.C.No.259 of 2005, though the supposed victim \[name withheld\] was alive - a fact the court confirmed by examining her and others as court witnesses (paras 2, 40, 44). The trial court had ACQUITTED all four on 20.02.2007 and that acquittal had become final (para 2). The court held the investigating officers had acted in good faith and by mistake of fact guided by the forensic superimposition report, committed no offence, and made out no prima facie case for registration of any case against them (paras 37-41). It set aside the final report, cognizance, trial and judgment, discharged all four accused and reopened the investigation under DSP, DCB Tuticorin (para 54(i)-(iii)). Holding serious human-rights violations of the accused by State officers established (para 44), it awarded Rs.4,00,000 to each of the four accused (Rs.16,00,000 total) within three months (para 54(v)), and dismissed the plea for an FIR against the officers (para 54(iv)). The respondents contended the officers acted in good faith by mistake of fact and taxpayer money should not be paid (para 43). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Undoubtedly, in this case, there were serious human rights violations caused to the accused by the officers of the State Government.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15627578/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 44
**display title redacted:** Murappanadu Man and Another vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['case_title', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-07-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,600,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.4225 and 7759 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15627578/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC set aside false murder trial and discharged accused, held serious HR violations, Rs.4L each to four accused.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2015-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0029)

## Nagoor Man vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2015-0015)

**Record:** CW-2015-0015 (compiler id CWC-0732); case GAP5-003
**Title:** Nagoor Man vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul; T.S. Sivagnanam
**Case number / citation:** W.P.No.18154 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2015-07-28 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-12-31 (2013)
**Place:** Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu; city town: Nagoor; police station or unit: Nagoor Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Nagoor Police Station; Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagoor Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Nagoor man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The hospital affidavit records that a Nagoor man, brought by escort police for a preliminary check-up before lodgment in prison on the night of 31.12.2013, was conscious, stuttering and inebriated, then collapsed and died at 1.15 a.m.; the post-mortem recorded three external injuries and opined shock as the cause of death (paras 1-2). The petitioner, co-convenor of the Campaign for Custodial Justice and Abolition of Torture, sought an enquiry by a retired District Judge into the custodial torture and death. The Division Bench noted the Government Order dated 25.07.2015 sanctioning Rs.5,00,000 relief to the family and directed structured disbursal (Rs.2 lakh wife deposit, Rs.1 lakh per child deposit, Rs.1 lakh immediate release) (paras 3-4). It recorded that Inspector of Nagoor Police Station had exceeded his powers and used unwarranted force, noting the magisterial enquiry findings, his suspension, and the decision to initiate criminal and departmental proceedings (para 5). The writ petition was disposed of and listed for compliance on 09.10.2015 (paras 6-7). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In so far as the fate of Tr.\[name withheld\] is concerned, who was the then Inspector of Police, Nagoor Police Station, who has exceeded his powers and has used unwarranted force

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139431393/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Nagoor Man vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'officers', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-07-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.No.18154 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139431393/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC recorded unwarranted force by Nagoor Inspector; Rs.5L State relief structured by court; criminal and dept proceedings initiated.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2015-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0015)

## \[name withheld\] vs The National Human Rights Commission and Others (CW-2015-0034)

**Record:** CW-2015-0034 (compiler id CWC-0840); case GAP2-39-003
**Title:** \[name withheld\] vs The National Human Rights Commission and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Pushpa Sathyanarayana
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.3799 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2015-11-04 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Kancheepuram); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Kancheepuram District Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Police officer challenged G.O.Ms. Nos.113, 220 and 436 of 2011 and the SP Kancheepuram memo dated 17.06.2011 directing recovery from him following NHRC proceedings over a custodial death. The Division Bench recorded that Rs.50,000 each had already been recovered from five other personnel and that the RDO Madurantakam had filed a criminal case against the police personnel (C.M.P. No.3809/2015, JM Madurantakam) which was pending trial. The court held the authorities entitled to recover the amount from the petitioner since the NHRC order was never challenged, observing refund could be considered only on acquittal. The writ petition was dismissed; the order does not name the deceased, the other personnel, or the petitioner's rank. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In so far as recovery process is concerned, the aforesaid fact would show that the respondent authorities are entitled to recover the amount, as no challenge has been laid to the order passed by the National Human Rights Commission.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164704509/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] vs The National Human Rights Commission and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-11-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P. No.3799 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164704509/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Writ dismissed; recovery of NHRC-linked custodial-death compensation from the officer upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0034)

## Keeriparai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (CW-2015-0038)

**Record:** CW-2015-0038 (compiler id CWC-1290); case GAP3-87-001
**Title:** Keeriparai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: V. Ramasubramanian; N. Kirubakaran
**Case number / citation:** Writ Appeal (MD) No.1311 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2015-12-10 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-11-28 (2005)
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu; city town: Keeriparai; police station or unit: Keeriparai Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil Town, Kanyakumari District; Inspector of Police, Vadaseri Police Station, Nagercoil; Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District; Head Constable (No.1691), Aralvoimozhi Police Station; Head Constable (No.1726), Aralvoimozhi Police Station; Head Constable (No.1726), Aralvoimozhi Police Station; Head Constable (No.1568), Aralvoimozhi Police Station; Head Constable (No.542), Aralvoimozhi Police Station (9 in record)
**Victims:** Keeriparai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 7.9 lakh (Rs 7,86,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Madurai) dismissed the writ appeal of \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] against the single judge's order dated 01.07.2011 awarding Rs.7,86,000 compensation to Hasanammal for the custodial death of her husband \[name withheld\]. The single-judge order (W.P.(MD)No.8138 of 2008) records that Kadayanallur police took a Keeriparai man from his residence on 28.11.2005, handed him to Aralvoimozhi police, and kept him in illegal custody at Keeriparai police station from 28.11.2005 to 30.11.2005, where he was tortured by third-degree methods causing death on 30.11.2005 at 11 p.m., with the body disposed of - findings supported by the RDO enquiry, the Collector, G.O.Ms.No.1322 dated 27.11.2008 and the CBCID investigation. The police had originally claimed he was released and his whereabouts were unknown (appeal para 3). The Division Bench noted the State had paid the compensation without appeal (para 6) and that a CBCID charge sheet under Section 302 IPC was pending trial before the Sessions Court (para 4). It held the compensation findings could not clinch any officer's culpability and the trial would proceed on its own evidence (para 8), and dismissed the appeal (spellings: '\[name withheld\]' per the appeal cause title; '\[name withheld\]' in the single-judge cause title).

> By a detailed order passed on 01.07.2011, after taking into consideration the entire materials on record and the case laws on the point, the learned Judge directed the State to pay compensation for the death of the 5th respondent's husband in a sum of Rs.7,86,000/-.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84666221/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1236320/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Keeriparai Man vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-12-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 786,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Writ Appeal (MD) No.1311 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84666221/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1236320/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench dismissed DSP's appeal; Rs.7,86,000 custodial-death compensation award stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2015-0038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0038)

## Poothalur Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2016-0035)

**Record:** CW-2016-0035 (compiler id CWC-0850); case GAP2-39-002
**Title:** Poothalur Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: M.V. Muralidaran
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) No.9606 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2016-12-16 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-04-01 (2008)
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu; city town: Poothalur; police station or unit: Poothalur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art 226; Constitution Art 21; CrPC 357-A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Highway Patrol, Thanjavur District; Sub-Inspector of Police, PCR Wing, Nagapattinam District; Head Constable, Thirukkattupalli Police Station, Thanjavur District (3 in record)
**Victims:** Poothalur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Bhanumathi petitioned under Article 226 for her son \[name withheld\], who sustained a head injury needing eight stitches around 20-21 April 2008 and was then booked in a theft case (Crime No.80/2008, Poothalur P.S.) while his own assault complaint (Crime No.81/2008) was closed without proper investigation. The court found his injuries undisputed (admitted in R4's counter and medical records, para 7), held it had reason to believe respondents 4-11 were involved in the assault, and faulted SI for pursuing only the theft case while purposely omitting all evidence-gathering in Crime No.81/2008 (para 15). Relying on Nilabati Behera, D.K. Basu, Rini Johar and T. Sekaran, the court allowed the writ and directed the State to pay Selvaraj Rs.3,00,000 with 6% p.a. interest from 19.07.2010 within six weeks. It held the State vicariously liable for the Article 21 violation and noted the victim could also claim under the s.357-A CrPC Victim Compensation Scheme. Respondents 1-3 and R4 denied the allegations and questioned maintainability (para 8). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The offenders who assaulted the petitioner's son were not prosecuted by the State since the State did not investigate the case properly in Crime Number: 81 of 2008 on the file of the Poothalur Police Station.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82698772/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Poothalur Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-12-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(MD) No.9606 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82698772/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Compensation Rs.3L with 6% interest ordered; court found police assault involvement and investigative failure.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2016-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0035)

## Tiruchirappalli Man vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (CW-2017-0017)

**Record:** CW-2017-0017 (compiler id CWC-1291); case GAP3-87-002
**Title:** Tiruchirappalli Man vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: M. V. Muralidaran
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) No.14581 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2017-03-03 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-01-21 (2007)
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu; city town: Tiruchirappalli; police station or unit: Railway Police Station, Tiruchirappalli; force: railway
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 41(2); CrPC 176; Constitution Art.21; Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Tiruchirappalli; Head Police Constable (No.1178), Railway Police Station, Madurai; Police Constable (No.124), Railway Police Station, Tiruchirappalli (3 in record)
**Victims:** Tiruchirappalli man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court (Madurai) held that S. Indra's husband \[name withheld\], detained by the Trichy Railway Police in a cell-phone theft case (Crime No.67 of 2007), died while in the custody of the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Tiruchirappalli (R5), while being escorted to Madurai by R7 and R8 (para 10). The respondents' counter stated he had stolen two cell phones of co-passengers and died jumping out of the train between Chettiyapatty and Vaiyampatty stations (paras 4, 7). The court recorded the State's admission that a PSO enquiry had revealed R5 assaulted the deceased and that criminal and disciplinary proceedings had been launched (G.O.Ms.No.298 dated 03.04.2009), with Rs.5,00,000 paid on the NHRC's recommendation (paras 8, 10). It held the State vicariously liable (para 11), found Rs.5,00,000 inadequate (para 13), declined a CBCID investigation, and directed the Home Secretary to consider enhancement after a detailed enquiry by an officer of Superintendent of Police rank (paras 14-15). The writ petition was disposed of with those directions. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On perusal of available records and as well as the counter of the 1st respondent undoubtedly it is demonstrated that the petitioner's husband died while under the custody of the 5th respondent and thereupon appropriate criminal and disciplinary actions were also initiated against the errant police personnel.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31771513/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Tiruchirappalli Man vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-03-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(MD) No.14581 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31771513/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held death occurred in railway-police custody; Rs.5 lakh paid, enhancement ordered via SP-rank enquiry.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2017-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0017)

## Theni Man v. The Government of Tamilnadu and Others (CW-2017-0010)

**Record:** CW-2017-0010 (compiler id CWC-0471); case SOUTH-002
**Title:** Theni Man v. The Government of Tamilnadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: S. Vaidyanathan
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 21312 of 2004
**Judgment:** 2017-09-15 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-04-05 (1995)
**Place:** Theni, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Madurai); city town: Theni; police station or unit: Narcotics Intelligence Bureau office, Theni; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Pandiaraj (Inspector of Police); Sub-Inspector of Police, Narcotics Intelligence Bureau (2 in record)
**Victims:** Theni man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10.5 lakh (Rs 10,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. replace ' ' — paras 3-4 record the Government Advocate's counter (custodial-death denial, deceased a hard-core criminal, Crl.A.No.946/2003 acquittal bars relief); summarize it per R52. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> There are categorical findings based on the evidence that had been discussed indicating that the said Pandiaraj, Inspector of Police, who led the team, was directly responsible for the death of a Theni man

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165910510/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Theni Man v. The Government of Tamilnadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-09-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,050,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 21312 of 2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165910510/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC awarded Rs 10.5L total for a Theni man's NIB custodial death; criminal acquittal held no bar.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2017-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0010)

## \[name withheld\] vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another (CW-2018-0024)

**Record:** CW-2018-0024 (compiler id CWC-0851); case GAP2-39-013
**Title:** \[name withheld\] vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: V. Parthiban
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.9589 of 2015
**Judgment:** 2018-06-20 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-01-01 (2001)
**Place:** Tamil Nadu; police station or unit: Trichy Range, Tamil Nadu Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Trichy Range, Tamil Nadu Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

conviction was not 'in 2001' — 2001 is trap/suspension year (para 3-4); conviction pre-dates May-2008 show-cause with Crl. appeal C.A.No.343/2008 (paras 5-6), confirmed with SLP rejected 21.08.2012 (para 7)

> Since this Court is of the considered view that the proved corruption cannot be condoned under any circumstances and therefore dismissal order cannot even be remotely held to be disproportionate.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/119618751/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/the-yearly-reports-madras-high-court-in-2018)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-06-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P. No.9589 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/119618751/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/the-yearly-reports-madras-high-court-in-2018', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed POCA-convicted SI plea; dismissal for bribery upheld, conversion to compulsory retirement refused.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0024)

## Tirunelveli Resident and \[name withheld\] vs Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli (CW-2019-0024)

**Record:** CW-2019-0024 (compiler id CWC-1294); case GAP3-88-004
**Title:** Tirunelveli Resident and \[name withheld\] vs Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: P. Velmurugan
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A.(MD) Nos.298 and 300 of 2011
**Judgment:** 2019-01-22 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-01-10 (2000)
**Place:** Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel; Police personnel (2 in record)
**Victims:** Tirunelveli resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Madras High Court (Madurai) dismissed the criminal appeals of \[name withheld\] (A-1) and \[name withheld\] (A-2) and confirmed their conviction and sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment plus Rs.2,500 fine each for demanding and accepting a Rs.1,000 bribe for a petition enquiry. The court held demand, acceptance and recovery proved through PW.1 to PW.4, PW.14, PW.16 and the exhibits: A-1 demanded the bribe, A-2 received the cash inside the police station on 11.01.2000 during a DVAC trap, and the phenolphthalein test proved positive. It held sanction valid and the trial court's appreciation of evidence correct, confirming the 14.11.2011 judgment of the Special Judge, Tirunelveli in full. Ranks and the station name are not stated in the judgment; A-3's acquittal was left undisturbed.

> In view of the foregoing discussion, from the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.14 and PW.16 along with Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2, Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 Ex.P.18 Ex.P.32, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case that the appellant had demanded illegal gratification and accepted it and the same was recovered from the appellant. In other words, the demand, acceptance and recovery are proved.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75757661/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112597752/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 31
**display title redacted:** Tirunelveli Resident and \[name withheld\] vs Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A.(MD) Nos.298 and 300 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2019-01-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A.(MD) Nos.298 and 300 of 2011', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75757661/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112597752/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed both appeals; 3-year RI PC Act bribery convictions confirmed; ranks/station unstated.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0024)

## B. Thiagarajan vs State, Rep. by the \[name withheld\], Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Theni (CW-2019-0002)

**Record:** CW-2019-0002 (compiler id CWC-0368); case TAMILN-004
**Title:** B. Thiagarajan vs State, Rep. by the \[name withheld\], Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Theni
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: M. Dhandapani, J.
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A.(MD) No. 133 of 2013 / AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 759
**Judgment:** 2019-02-19 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-08-18 (2009)
**Place:** Theni, Tamil Nadu; city town: Andipatti; police station or unit: Chinnamanur Police Station (on deputation at Andipatti check post); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** B. Thiagarajan (Grade-I Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Andipatti man; Andipatti man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the criminal appeal of Grade-I Police Constable B. Thiagarajan and affirmed his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While posted at the Andipatti check post in Theni district, the officer intercepted two motorists on a motorcycle, seized their vehicle documents and mobile phone, and demanded an illegal gratification of Rs 1,000 under threat of a hefty fine. Following a trap laid by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing, the officer was caught red-handed accepting the phenolphthalein-treated notes. Justice M. Dhandapani held that the prosecution established the charges beyond reasonable doubt through consistent witness testimony and chemical analysis, confirming the sentence of one year simple imprisonment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> this Court finds no merit in the appeal and hence, Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence dated 19.04.2013, passed in Special Case No. 94 of 2011, by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai, is confirmed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33290039/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 13
**display title redacted:** B. Thiagarajan vs State, Rep. by the \[name withheld\], Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Theni
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 759', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2019-02-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 759', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33290039/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court confirmed conviction of police constable under PC Act for demanding and accepting Rs 1,000 bribe at check post.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0002)

## Perambalur Police personnel vs State by Inspector of Police, DVAC Trichy (CW-2019-0029)

**Record:** CW-2019-0029 (compiler id CWC-1293); case GAP3-88-003
**Title:** Perambalur Police personnel vs State by Inspector of Police, DVAC Trichy
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: A. D. Jagadish Chandira
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No.1021 of 2005
**Judgment:** 2019-04-25 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-06-12 (2000)
**Place:** Perambalur, Tamil Nadu; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel (1 in record)
**Victims:** Perambalur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Madras High Court confirmed the conviction of \[name withheld\], a police officer who received criminal complaints and issued CSR receipts, for demanding and accepting a Rs.1,000 bribe plus a plastic chair and whisky bottles to act on complainant \[name withheld\]'s petitions. The court held demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt through the complainant, the trap witness, the DVAC Trap Laying Officer and the positive phenolphthalein tests on the tainted cash, purse and hands, and held sanction valid. It confirmed the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, reducing only the sentence from five years to one year and six months rigorous imprisonment with the Rs.5,000 fine maintained, noting he stood dismissed from service. The appeal was allowed in part to that limited extent.

> The conviction made by the Trial Court against the Appellant/ accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 shall stand confirmed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107739692/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5fffe2c49fca1917ab0f3cc3)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 42
**display title redacted:** Perambalur Police personnel vs State by Inspector of Police, DVAC Trichy
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No.1021 of 2005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2019-04-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No.1021 of 2005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107739692/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5fffe2c49fca1917ab0f3cc3', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC confirmed PC Act bribery conviction; sentence cut to 1.5 years RI; rank/station unstated in judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0029)

## Sivakasi Man v. State & Ors. (CW-2019-0006)

**Record:** CW-2019-0006 (compiler id CWC-0582); case SWFALSEI-014
**Title:** Sivakasi Man v. State & Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: B. Pugalendhi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) No. 9014 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2019-07-08 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-05-12 (2005)
**Place:** Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu; city town: Sivakasi; police station or unit: Sivakasi Town PS; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** NDPS Act s.8(c)/20(b); Wildlife Protection Act s.51(1)
**Officers (gated display forms):** M. Ramasamy (Inspector); Sub-Inspector, Sivakasi Town PS (2 in record)
**Victims:** Sivakasi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. replace ' ' — paras 4.2-4.7 record the respondents' counter (credible-information search with DSP permission, accused untraceable, case closed as 'action dropped', liability not absolved); summarize it per R52. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, it is clear that in order to victimize the petitioner, the 4th respondent has foisted a case against him and the findings given by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, establish that the 4th respondent has committed a serious professional lapses.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189339587/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Sivakasi Man v. State & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-07-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(MD) No. 9014 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189339587/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Inspector foisted 4 cases incl NDPS to favour civil-dispute party; victim jailed 45 days, Rs 1L.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0006)

## Sivagangai Woman vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (CW-2019-0035)

**Record:** CW-2019-0035 (compiler id CWC-1292); case GAP3-88-001
**Title:** Sivagangai Woman vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: M. S. Ramesh
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.16442 of 2004
**Judgment:** 2019-08-07 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-07-07 (2002)
**Place:** Sivagangai, Tamil Nadu; police station or unit: Ulagampatti Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 107; Constitution Art.21; Constitution Art.22; Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Ulagampatti Police Station, Sivagangai District (1 in record)
**Victims:** Sivagangai woman, age 25 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. replace ' ' — paras 4/7/11 record respondents' counter (matrimonial + land disputes, Cr.No.21/2001 u/s 107 CrPC, 4th respondent expired, transfer administrative not punitive, no State liability); summarize it per R52. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the undisputable facts establishing that the petitioner in the instant case was subjected to illegal arrest and torture and by applying the ratio laid down in D.K.Basu's case (supra), this Court is of the view that the petitioner requires to be monetarily compensated.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2374189/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Sivagangai Woman vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-08-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No.16442 of 2004', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2374189/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held assault and illegal arrest by police proved; Rs.2 lakh compensation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0035)

## Neyveli Man vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2019-0015)

**Record:** CW-2019-0015 (compiler id CWC-0738); case GAP5-002
**Title:** Neyveli Man vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: S. Manikumar; Subramonium Prasad
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 9267 of 2017 / AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 672; (2019) 7 MAD LJ 652
**Judgment:** 2019-09-04 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2015-05-28 (2015)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu; city town: Neyveli; police station or unit: Neyveli Township Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Neyveli Township Police Station; Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore; Constable, Neyveli Township Police Station (3 in record)
**Victims:** Neyveli man, age 35 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 30.1 lakh (Rs 30,09,648)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

replace ' ' — Inspector's denials (daily release on muchalika; JIPMER-attack story) and State's quantum objection (Rs.5L cap citing Sangaiyya) are recorded; summarize per R52. Age: court computed on 36 years (paras 73-74), petitioner pleaded 35. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> prefix with 'Hence, ' per para 76 ('Hence, the total compensation works out to Rs.30,09,648/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.')

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128551506/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 76
**display title redacted:** Neyveli Man vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'court_quote', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-09-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 3,009,648.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 672; (2019) 7 MAD LJ 652', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128551506/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; PIL maintainable, week-long illegal detention and torture death, Rs. 30.09 lakh awarded.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0015)

## Arakkandanallur Woman and Others vs The Secretary, Public Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and Another (CW-2019-0020)

**Record:** CW-2019-0020 (compiler id CWC-0739); case GAP5-001
**Title:** Arakkandanallur Woman and Others vs The Secretary, Public Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and Another
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: V. Bharathidasan
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 18315 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2019-11-07 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-08-05 (2006)
**Place:** Villupuram, Tamil Nadu; city town: Arakkandanallur; police station or unit: Arakkandanallur Police Station, Villupuram; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Arakkandanallur Police Station, Villupuram; Head Constable, Arakkandanallur Police Station, Villupuram; Head Constable, Arakkandanallur Police Station, Villupuram (3 in record)
**Victims:** Arakkandanallur man, age 26 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

An Arakkandanallur man @ an Arakkandanallur man, aged 26, arrested in a prohibition case and detained in the Arakkandanallur police lock-up, was found dead on 5 August 2006 and declared brought dead at the Government Hospital. The family alleged custodial violence; the State contended suicide by hanging due to police negligence. A Revenue Divisional Officer inquiry examining 45 persons concluded suicide without custodial violence but fixed negligence on one Sub-Inspector and two Head Constables, who were suspended and faced criminal proceedings (later quashed in 2014). The Court held it admitted that the deceased died an unnatural death in police custody, applied Supreme Court precedents on State liability, and allowed the writ, quantifying fair compensation at Rs. 3,00,000 less Rs. 1,00,000 already paid, with 9% interest on default. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Since the deceased died while he was in the custody of the police in connection with a criminal case and the death was unnatural, the petitioners are entitled for compensation.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96074660/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Arakkandanallur Woman and Others vs The Secretary, Public Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-11-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 18315 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96074660/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; admitted unnatural custodial death, Rs. 3 lakh total (Rs. 2 lakh additional) on State liability.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0020)

## S. (minor, through father M.) vs Secretary, Home Department and Others (CW-2019-0037)

**Record:** CW-2019-0037 (compiler id CWC-0856); case GAP2-40-006
**Title:** S. (minor, through father M.) vs Secretary, Home Department and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: V. Bharathidasan
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 17503 of 2013
**Judgment:** 2019-11-27 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-02-22 (2013)
**Place:** Tiruvarur, Tamil Nadu; city town: Kottur; police station or unit: Kottur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 457; IPC 380; IPC 379; Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Kottur Police Station; Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottur Police Station; Police Constable, Kottur Police Station; Police Constable, Kottur Police Station; Police Constable, Kottur Police Station; Police Constable, Kottur Police Station (6 in record)
**Victims:** Kottur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. replace 'minor XI-standard student a minor boy' with role noun ('a minor boy studying in XI standard'); replace ' ' with the recorded counter (DSP clean-chit; respondents' chase/fall + wayward-life claims, paras 5-7) per R52. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus, the available medical records would go to clearly show that the petitioner sustained severe injuries at the hands of the respondents 5 to 10 while he was in police custody.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/59561839/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** S. (minor, through father M.) vs Secretary, Home Department and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['case_title', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-11-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 17503 of 2013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/59561839/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary text verified: Rs 3L compensation for custodial torture of minor; DIG enquiry ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0037)

## M. Seenivasan vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai Detachment (CW-2020-0001)

**Record:** CW-2020-0001 (compiler id CWC-0367); case TAMILN-003
**Title:** M. Seenivasan vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai Detachment
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal(MD) No. 129 of 2015
**Judgment:** 2020-01-06 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-01-29 (2003)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Thirumangalam; police station or unit: Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** M. Seenivasan (Sub-Inspector of Police) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Thirumangalam woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the criminal appeal of Sub-Inspector M. Seenivasan of Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station and confirmed his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The officer demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs 2,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] to delete her husband's name from a final report, leading to a trap by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing where tainted currency notes were recovered and tested positive. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar held that the prosecution cogently proved demand, acceptance, and recovery through the evidence of eyewitnesses, the trap laying officer, and the independent shadow witness. The High Court affirmed the trial court's sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and directed that the officer be secured to undergo the remaining sentence.

> the demand, acceptance and recovery had been clearly proved by the prosecution. The trial Court on perusal of both the oral and documentary evidence has given a detailed finding, which need not be interfered with.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179653898/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** M. Seenivasan vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai Detachment
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal(MD) No. 129 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2020-01-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal(MD) No. 129 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2022-04-13', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 13 April 2022, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: M. Seenivasan); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://order.law/api/pdf/SCIN010177202020?order=1dmrf', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2022-04-13', 'url': 'https://order.law/api/pdf/SCIN010177202020?order=1dmrf', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179653898/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court confirmed conviction of Sub-Inspector under PC Act for demanding and accepting Rs 2,000 bribe in DVAC trap.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2020-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0001)

## The State of Tamil Nadu Sholavandan Man (CW-2020-0003)

**Record:** CW-2020-0003 (compiler id CWC-0492); case SWCUSTOD-014
**Title:** The State of Tamil Nadu Sholavandan Man
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: A. P. Sahi; Subramonium Prasad
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 3806 of 2019 and C.M.P. No. 24031 of 2019
**Judgment:** 2020-01-21 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-04-17 (2003)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Sholavandan; police station or unit: Kadupatti Police Station; Sholavandan Police Station; Samayanallur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 324; Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 s.30
**Officers (gated display forms):** M. Kalifulla (Inspector of Police) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Sholavandan man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court Division Bench dismissed the State appeal against the Single Judge order dated 2 July 2012 awarding Rs 1 lakh to taxi driver \[name withheld\]. The Court recorded that a Sholavandan man was called to Kadupatti police station on 17 April 2003 for enquiry into a missing-girl case and was repeatedly beaten, including having his right thumb tied and fractured, until 21-22 April 2003. The Court noted the Principal District and Sessions Judge had already convicted Inspector M. Kalifulla under Section 324 IPC read with Section 30 of the Human Rights Act. Holding the State vicariously liable and that public-law compensation is additional to criminal-court relief, the Court upheld the Rs 1 lakh award. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> So it is clear from the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 6 that the accused had committed an offence under Section 324 IPC r/w 30 of Human Rights Act.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7421222/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-369441.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/custodial-torture-madras-hc-upholds-the-decision-of-sessions-court-to-award-one-lakh-compensation-to-the-victim-151953)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6 (Sessions Court finding reproduced by Division Bench)
**display title redacted:** The State of Tamil Nadu Sholavandan Man
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-01-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.A. No. 3806 of 2019 and C.M.P. No. 24031 of 2019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7421222/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-369441.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/custodial-torture-madras-hc-upholds-the-decision-of-sessions-court-to-award-one-lakh-compensation-to-the-victim-151953', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench dismissed State writ appeal; Rs 1 lakh compensation for custodial torture upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2020-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0003)

## J. Leela v. State rep. by \[name withheld\], Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri (CW-2020-0019)

**Record:** CW-2020-0019 (compiler id CWC-1295); case GAP3-88-005
**Title:** J. Leela v. State rep. by \[name withheld\], Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: P. Velmurugan
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A.(MD) No.76 of 2012 with Crl.M.P.(MD) No.10840 of 2019
**Judgment:** 2020-06-19 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-01-01 (1998)
**Place:** Salem, Tamil Nadu; city town: Salem; police station or unit: Office of the Inspector General of Police, Salem Zone; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(e)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police, Salem Zone (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. DVAC Dharmapuri charge-sheeted Tamil Nadu cadre officer, who rose from DSP to Inspector General of Police, Salem Zone, for holding about Rs.33.58 lakh in assets disproportionate to his known income during the check period 01.01.1998-30.06.2001. The Special Court for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cases, Madurai convicted him on 30.03.2012 under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988, sentencing him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a Rs.10,000 fine, while acquitting four family co-accused. He appealed in 2012, died during pendency, and his widow \[name withheld\] was substituted on 26.11.2014 to continue the appeal. On 19.06.2020 the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held the prosecution had proved the disproportion beyond reasonable doubt and confirmed the conviction, though the custodial sentence stood abated on the appellant's death. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A careful reading of the grounds of the appeal and also the submissions made by both the counsel and also a careful reading of the oral and documentary evidence, this court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated evidence of the prosecution and rejected the defence of the appellant and come to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and rightly convicted and sentenced him to undergo a rigourous imprisonment of 3 years and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and also found out that there is no material to convict the other accused.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107795657/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** J. Leela v. State rep. by \[name withheld\], Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A.(MD) No.76 of 2012 with Crl.M.P.(MD) No.10840 of 2019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2020-06-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A.(MD) No.76 of 2012 with Crl.M.P.(MD) No.10840 of 2019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107795657/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed appeal and confirmed IGP's PC Act disproportionate-assets conviction; custodial sentence abated on his death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2020-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0019)

## Namakkal Man v. The Secretary, Public (L&O-A) Dept. (CW-2021-0004)

**Record:** CW-2021-0004 (compiler id CWC-0464); case SWCUSTOD-040
**Title:** Namakkal Man v. The Secretary, Public (L&O-A) Dept.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 9540 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2021-02-26 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-06-21 (1995)
**Place:** Namakkal, Tamil Nadu; city town: Namakkal; police station or unit: Namakkal PS; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Namakkal PS; Constable, Namakkal PS; Constable, Namakkal PS; Constable, Namakkal PS (4 in record)
**Victims:** Namakkal man, age 19 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court allowed the writ and ordered Rs 3 lakh additional compensation to the mother of 19-year-old a Namakkal man, tortured to death at Namakkal police station on 21 June 1995. The Court held the Rs 50,000 paid in 1996 was mere ex-gratia since police culpability was then unestablished, whereas guilt now stood established beyond reasonable doubt through the SDM enquiry and the life-term convictions of the Sub-Inspector and three constables. It treated State liability as the logical corollary of the established custodial death. Default interest of 9% was ordered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The responsibility of the Government and its officials for the tragic death of the Petitioner's son has been established beyond reasonable doubt in this case. Indeed, it is the admitted position that the Petitioner's son died while in custody at the Namakkal Police station and that such death was caused by the convicted police officials.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120376931/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Namakkal Man v. The Secretary, Public (L&O-A) Dept.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-02-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 9540 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120376931/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC allowed writ; Rs 3L additional compensation for established custodial death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2021-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0004)

## M. M. v. Secretary to Government, Home Department and Others (CW-2021-0020)

**Record:** CW-2021-0020 (compiler id CWC-1297); case GAP3-89-002
**Title:** M. M. v. Secretary to Government, Home Department and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: T. Raja; V. Sivagnanam
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No.2558 of 2013
**Judgment:** 2021-11-23 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-01-26 (2011)
**Place:** Viluppuram, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Villupuram); city town: Tindivanam; police station or unit: Tindivanam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.21; Constitution Art.226; Protection of Human Rights Act 1993
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Tindivanam Police Station, Viluppuram District (3 in record)
**Victims:** Tindivanam woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. the survivor was admittedly taken from her Panruti home to Tindivanam Police Station on 26.01.2011 by mistaken identity, illegally detained over seven hours, beaten with a lathi and molested inside the station. Her SHRC complaint was dismissed for default and her writ petition dismissed on 08.11.2012 for not naming the policemen. On 23.11.2021 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held both dismissals wrong, recorded prima facie satisfaction with the custodial-violence complaint, and invoked public-law compensation under D.K. Basu. The Court set aside both orders, directed Rs.3,00,000 interim compensation within four weeks, and remanded the matter to the SHRC to identify the officers and enquire afresh. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For all the aforementioned reasons, having been prima facie satisfied with the complaint of custodial violence, for outraging the modesty of the appellant, being the mother of two female children, while setting aside the order passed in the writ petition as well as the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission, we remand the matter back to the file of the State Human Rights Commission to enquire into the complaint of the appellant afresh and find out who are the officers who have illegally detained the appellant and committed custodial violence on 26.1.2011, as per the procedure established by law, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we also direct the respondent State to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) as interim compensation to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, leaving it open to the State Human Rights Commission to do the needful on merits and in accordance with law.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195356530/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** M. M. v. Secretary to Government, Home Department and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-11-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.A. No.2558 of 2013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195356530/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench recorded prima facie custodial violence, ordered Rs.3 lakh interim compensation, remanded to SHRC to identify officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2021-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0020)

## Pudukkoorapettai Police Inspector of Police and others vs State by \[name withheld\], CBI/SCB/Chennai (Pudukkoorapettai Woman-Pudukkoorapettai Man honour killing case) (CW-2022-0025)

**Record:** CW-2022-0025 (compiler id CWC-0023); case GAP5-004
**Title:** Pudukkoorapettai Police Inspector of Police and others vs State by \[name withheld\], CBI/SCB/Chennai (Pudukkoorapettai Woman-Pudukkoorapettai Man honour killing case)
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: P.N. Prakash; A.A. Nakkiran
**Case number / citation:** R.T. No.4 of 2021 and Crl.A. Nos.483, 504, 522, 523, 524 and 626 of 2021
**Judgment:** 2022-06-08 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-07-08 (2003)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu; city town: Pudukkoorapettai; police station or unit: Vriddhachalam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 217; IPC 218; SC/ST Act 1989 s.3(2)(i); SC/ST Act 1989 s.4
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Vriddhachalam Police Station; Sub-Inspector of Police, Vriddhachalam Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Pudukkoorapettai man; Pudukkoorapettai woman; Pudukkoorapettai man; Pudukkoorapettai man; Pudukkoorapettai man (5 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; Rs 9 lakh (Rs 9,00,000)
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

Newly married inter-caste couple a Pudukkoorapettai man and a Pudukkoorapettai woman died on 8 July 2003 and their bodies were cremated in haste; Inspector manufactured an extrajudicial confession, falsely implicated three Dalit men, arrested them, recorded their police confessions and effected make-believe seizures, while Sub-Inspector registered the FIR thereafter. The CBI investigated and the Special Court convicted thirteen accused. The Division Bench held the fabrication by \[name withheld\] proved, dismissed his appeal and confirmed his life sentence with the Rs.3,00,000-each compensation to the three victims' side, and confirmed \[name withheld\]'s conviction under Section 217 IPC and Section 4 of the SC/ST Act while acquitting him of Section 218 IPC and Section 3(2)(i).

> it was only \[name withheld\] (A.15), with the knowledge of his \[name withheld\], who had falsely implicated a Pudukkoorapettai man (P.W.1), a Pudukkoorapettai man (P.W.33) and a Pudukkoorapettai man, all Dalits, in this case, arrested them, recorded their police confessions and effected make-believe seizures.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29817701/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/tn-honour-killing-case-supreme-court-upholds-life-sentence-of-police-inspector-for-fabricating-evidence-against-dalits-290616)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 222
**display title redacted:** Pudukkoorapettai Police Inspector of Police and others vs State by \[name withheld\], CBI/SCB/Chennai (Pudukkoorapettai Woman-Pudukkoorapettai Man honour killing case)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'R.T. No.4 of 2021 and Crl.A. Nos.483, 504, 522, 523, 524 and 626 of 2021', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2022-06-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'R.T. No.4 of 2021 and Crl.A. Nos.483, 504, 522, 523, 524 and 626 of 2021', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29817701/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/tn-honour-killing-case-supreme-court-upholds-life-sentence-of-police-inspector-for-fabricating-evidence-against-dalits-290616', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed Inspector's appeal confirming life term for fabricating evidence; SI conviction u/s 217 IPC and s.4 SC/ST Act confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0025)

## K. Kumaradoss vs The Principal Secretary to Government and Others (CW-2022-0011)

**Record:** CW-2022-0011 (compiler id CWC-0541); case SWEXTORT-004
**Title:** K. Kumaradoss vs The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: S. M. Subramaniam
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 2507 of 2015 / 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
**Judgment:** 2022-06-21 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** K. Kumaradoss (Special Sub-Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chennai resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The Madras High Court (Justice S. M. Subramaniam) dismissed the writ petition of retired Special Sub-Inspector K. Kumaradoss, upholding the major penalty of pay reduction by three stages for three years with cumulative effect for receiving mamool of Rs 50 twice a week from a bunk-shop owner near a TASMAC shop. The Court held the departmental enquiry's finding of proved corruption charges suffered no perversity and the punishment was not disproportionate. It directed registration of criminal cases wherever mamool receipt by police officials is traced. The appeal and review against the penalty had already failed.

> Perusal of the entire findings of the enquiry officer in his report, it is clear that the allegation of receiving mamool by the police officials are established.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38483876/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/madras-high-court-police-officials-receiving-mamool-order-of-punishment-upheld-202303)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** K. Kumaradoss vs The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-06-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38483876/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/madras-high-court-police-officials-receiving-mamool-order-of-punishment-upheld-202303', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld major penalty for proved mamool receipts; directed criminal cases.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0011)

## Chennai Man vs The State of Tamil Nadu (CW-2022-0014)

**Record:** CW-2022-0014 (compiler id CWC-0359); case TAMILN-006
**Title:** Chennai Man vs The State of Tamil Nadu
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 10249/2020 / 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
**Judgment:** 2022-07-18 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-01-11 (2012)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Chennai; police station or unit: K-7 ICF Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 304 Part II; IPC 342; IPC 343; IPC 348; IPC 324; Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police (Crime), K-7 ICF Police Station, Chennai (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chennai man, age 22 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court allowed the Article 226 writ plea of S. Pongulali over the custodial death of her 22-year-old son \[name withheld\], picked up by K-7 ICF police on 11 January 2012 and dead on 16 January 2012 after being shuttled between the prison hospital and Royapettah Government Hospital without proper treatment. Holding it a clear case of murder by the accused police personnel, the Court directed the CB-CID to alter Crime No. 2 of 2017 to Section 302 IPC against Inspector and the other accused officers and file a final report within eight weeks. It directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay Rs 5 lakh interim compensation to the dependents (mother, young wife and 8-year-old child) within four weeks, recoverable from the accused persons in the manner known to law. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, it is clear case of murder and all the accused persons shall be punished for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64472349/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/madras-high-court-custodial-death-murder-charge-against-erring-officials-five-lakh-interim-compensation-to-family-205624)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Chennai Man vs The State of Tamil Nadu
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-07-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 331', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64472349/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/madras-high-court-custodial-death-murder-charge-against-erring-officials-five-lakh-interim-compensation-to-family-205624', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras High Court held the custodial death of a Chennai man a clear case of murder, directed CB-CID to alter the case to s.302 IPC against Inspector and other K-7 ICF personnel, and awarded Rs 5 lakh interim compensation recoverable from the accused.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0014)

## Kudimangalam Man v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2022-0031)

**Record:** CW-2022-0031 (compiler id CWC-1300); case GAP3-89-005
**Title:** Kudimangalam Man v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: G. Chandrasekharan
**Case number / citation:** W.P. Nos.32765 & 32766 of 2014 and W.M.P. No.11454 of 2017 / 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 3751
**Judgment:** 2022-07-20 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-10-31 (2014)
**Place:** Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu; city town: Kudimangalam; police station or unit: Kudimangalam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Kudimangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District; Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Kudimangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District; Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Kudimangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District; Sub-Inspector of Police, Kudimangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District; Inspector of Police, Kudimangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District; Woman Police Constable, Kudimangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District; Grade I Police Constable, Udumalpet Police Station, Tiruppur District; Head Constable, Keeranur Police Station, Dindigul District (7 in record)
**Victims:** Kudimangalam man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 15 lakh (Rs 15,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Kudimangalam man met with a road accident on 31.10.2014 within Kudimangalam Police Station limits, was admitted to Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital, and died unidentified on 13.11.2014 without any FIR being registered, despite the accident having been intimated to the station and family visits with a missing-person notice. On 20.07.2022 the Madras High Court held the Kudimangalam police personnel and hospital staff had failed their public duty and constitutional mandate, violating the deceased's fundamental right to competent medical treatment and letting him die as an orphan. The Court awarded Rs.15,00,000 compensation at 6% interest, recoverable from the responsible police officials and medical staff, and ordered the SP, Tiruppur to have the accident reinvestigated by an officer not below DSP rank with a supplementary final report within three months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Thus, they violated the fundamental right of the deceased \[name withheld\] for competent medical treatment.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94827260/); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/08/04/allowed-to-die-as-an-orphan-without-any-efforts-taken-for-identifying-his-name-address-wife-and-children-madras-high-court-directs-compensation-to-the-family/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 75
**display title redacted:** Kudimangalam Man v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-07-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2022 SCC OnLine Mad 3751', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94827260/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/08/04/allowed-to-die-as-an-orphan-without-any-efforts-taken-for-identifying-his-name-address-wife-and-children-madras-high-court-directs-compensation-to-the-family/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held Kudimangalam police violated accident victim's right to care; Rs.15 lakh compensation plus DSP-rank reinvestigation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0031)

## Dharapuram Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2022-0035)

**Record:** CW-2022-0035 (compiler id CWC-0855); case GAP2-40-005
**Title:** Dharapuram Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: R. Subramanian; K. Kumaresh Babu
**Case number / citation:** W.P. Nos. 22431 and 22527 of 2021 / 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
**Judgment:** 2022-11-29 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2020-02-29 (2020)
**Place:** Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu; city town: Dharapuram; police station or unit: Dharapuram Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 294(b); IPC 323; IPC 506(ii)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Dharapuram man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court partly allowed the writ petition of a Dharapuram man, an advocate with 80% locomotor disability, and dismissed the erring Sub-Inspector's challenge. The court found his arrest on 29.02.2020 by the Dharapuram police violated the D.K. Basu and Arnesh Kumar guidelines and that he was slapped and harassed in custody. It held the SHRC's Rs 1 lakh award wholly insufficient and enhanced compensation to Rs 5 lakh, with Rs 4 lakh borne by the State and Rs 1 lakh recoverable from the officer. It retained the direction to take disciplinary action against the Sub-Inspector and awarded Rs 25,000 costs; the Supreme Court affirmed on 15.07.2025. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The very casual manner in which the officer replied to our query, as to whether, he had read the judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another shocks us. Such replies will reflect upon the entire Police Force.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com](https://livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/490-l-muruganandam-v-state-29-nov-2022-448050.pdf); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1219499/l-muruganantham-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-others/); [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2025/july/l-muruganantham-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-36)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 37
**display title redacted:** Dharapuram Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-11-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 490', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://livelaw-hpnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/490-l-muruganandam-v-state-29-nov-2022-448050.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1219499/l-muruganantham-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2025/july/l-muruganantham-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-36', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary PDF verified: Rs 5L compensation (Rs 4L State + Rs 1L recovery from SI), officer's writ dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0035)

## Dindigul Resident and Others v. Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District (CW-2023-0036)

**Record:** CW-2023-0036 (compiler id CWC-1299); case GAP3-89-004
**Title:** Dindigul Resident and Others v. Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: S. Srimathy
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) No.7380 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) No.6201 of 2016
**Judgment:** 2023-02-23 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dindigul, Tamil Nadu; police station or unit: Dindigul District Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Dindigul District Police; Police personnel, Dindigul District Police; Police personnel, Dindigul District Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Dindigul resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

Three serving Dindigul policemen faced a custodial-death complaint; the NHRC enquired, ordered compensation to the victim's family, and directed the Government to pay and recover from the policemen, yielding recovery orders dated 06.11.2015 and 10.12.2015. The policemen challenged the recovery before the Madurai Bench, which had earlier stayed recovery subject to the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The Government reported that all three were convicted in the criminal case on 27.04.2021. On 23.02.2023 the Court therefore declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it, keeping the compensation recovery alive with liberty to revive their rights if acquitted on appeal.

> Since the criminal proceedings ended in conviction, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35790241/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**compensation ordered:** True
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Dindigul Resident and Others v. Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Compensation ordered by the NHRC (recoverable from the three policemen) with no fixed amount in the order; the High Court kept the recovery in force.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-02-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered compensation in an amount stated in the judgment.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(MD) No.7380 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) No.6201 of 2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35790241/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed convicted policemen's challenge, sustaining NHRC compensation recovery for custodial death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0036)

## Thiruvattar Woman v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2023-0039)

**Record:** CW-2023-0039 (compiler id CWC-1296); case GAP3-89-001
**Title:** Thiruvattar Woman v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: R. Vijayakumar
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) No.2584 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) No.2295 of 2016 / 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
**Judgment:** 2023-03-29 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2010-02-16 (2010)
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu; city town: Thiruvattar; police station or unit: Thiruvattar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956; Constitution Art.21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kanyakumari District (1 in record)
**Victims:** Thiruvattar woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Thiruvattar woman was arrested on 16.02.2010 in Crime No.91 of 2010 under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and detained 13 days on a complaint the Court found was fabricated from blank signed papers of a traffic offender. A DSP, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil enquiry reported on 29.04.2011 that the case was foisted and recommended withdrawal; the charge sheet was quashed on 26.06.2015 but no action was taken against the erring officials. On 29.03.2023 the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held the foisted case and arrest sullied her privacy and reputation, for which the State is responsible. The Court directed the State to pay Rs.2,00,000 compensation within 8 weeks, with liberty to recover from the erring police officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the above said undisputed facts, it is clear that the right of privacy and reputation of the writ petitioner have been sullied by the act of the police officials for which the State is certainly responsible.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/x-v-state-and-others-466623.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/madras-high-court-directs-state-compensate-woman-falsely-implicated-immoral-traffic-act-225409); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/04/06/madras-hc-directs-state-to-pay-rs-2-lakh-compensation-to-woman-falsely-accused-of-immoral-trafficking-legal-research-legal-news-updates/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** Thiruvattar Woman v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-03-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 109', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/x-v-state-and-others-466623.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/madras-high-court-directs-state-compensate-woman-falsely-implicated-immoral-traffic-act-225409', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/04/06/madras-hc-directs-state-to-pay-rs-2-lakh-compensation-to-woman-falsely-accused-of-immoral-trafficking-legal-research-legal-news-updates/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held Thiruvattar police foisted a false ITP Act case; Rs.2 lakh compensation with liberty to recover from erring officials.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0039)

## State v. Tamil Nadu Police Assistant Commissioner of Police (CW-2023-0008)

**Record:** CW-2023-0008 (compiler id CWC-0438); case SWBRIBER-011
**Title:** State v. Tamil Nadu Police Assistant Commissioner of Police
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: G. Jayachandran
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2023-04-13 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-01-01 (1991)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Madurai; police station or unit: Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madurai (formerly ACP (Crime), Thirumangalam, Chennai); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tamil Nadu Police (ACP Madurai) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The Madras High Court allowed the State's appeal under Section 378 CrPC and set aside the 20 February 2014 acquittal by the Special Court for PC Act Cases, Chennai (C.C. 82/2011), convicting Assistant Commissioner of Police \[name withheld\] under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court found that while serving as ACP, Madurai, he held assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period from 1 January 1991 to 31 December 2000, with acquired wealth of about Rs. 24.9 lakh against likely savings of about Rs. 13.5 lakh. It held the trial court had proceeded on a wrong presumption and that the unexplained excessive assets brought his misconduct within Section 13(1)(e). The accused was directed to appear on 19 April 2023 for hearing on sentence; the sentence order is not on record. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.82 of 2011 (Old C.C.No.02 of 2008) dated 20.02.2014, is set aside. The accused is found guilty of the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

**Sources (2):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/thirusvasanthakumar-1492469.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/prevention-of-corruption-act-misconduct-of-public-servant-1472581)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 42
**display title redacted:** State v. Tamil Nadu Police Assistant Commissioner of Police
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-04-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/thirusvasanthakumar-1492469.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/prevention-of-corruption-act-misconduct-of-public-servant-1472581', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC judgment PDF verified; acquittal set aside, ACP convicted of disproportionate assets; subcategory corrected to other.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2023-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0008)

## Kannan vs The \[name withheld\], Paramakudi Town (CW-2023-0009)

**Record:** CW-2023-0009 (compiler id CWC-0371); case TAMILN-007
**Title:** Kannan vs The \[name withheld\], Paramakudi Town
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
**Case number / citation:** Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 416 of 2018
**Judgment:** 2023-04-21 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-12-20 (2005)
**Place:** Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu; city town: Paramakudi; police station or unit: Nainarkovil Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 330
**Officers (gated display forms):** Kannan (Police Officer) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Paramakudi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.5 yrs; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a criminal revision case filed by police officer Kannan and affirmed his conviction under Section 330 IPC for inflicting custodial torture to extort a confession. In December 2005, the victim was brought to Nainarkovil Police Station on suspicion of jewel theft, where the petitioner tied his hands and legs, beat him with a lathi, and kicked him with boots, causing injuries that required hospitalisation at Paramakudi Government Hospital and Madurai Rajaji Hospital. Rejecting the officer's plea that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required, Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan held that custodial violence forms no part of official duty and was conclusively established by the medical evidence and the RDO enquiry. The Court affirmed the modified sentence of six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 20,000, of which Rs 10,000 was awarded to the victim as compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> the prosecution proved that P.W.1 was assaulted by the petitioner in the Police Station, that too without committing any offence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109209221/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Kannan vs The \[name withheld\], Paramakudi Town
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 416 of 2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2023-04-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 416 of 2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109209221/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court confirmed conviction of police officer under IPC 330 for custodial torture to extort confession in false theft case.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0009)

## Chennai Man v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2023-0033)

**Record:** CW-2023-0033 (compiler id CWC-0740); case SWILLEGA-088
**Title:** Chennai Man v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: Anita Sumanth
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 13488 of 2005
**Judgment:** 2023-06-14 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-11-29 (2002)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Chennai; police station or unit: R-7 K.K. Nagar Police Station, Chennai; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, R-7 K.K. Nagar PS, Chennai; Sub-Inspector (L&O), R-7 K.K. Nagar PS, Chennai; Head Constable, R-7 K.K. Nagar PS, Chennai (3 in record)
**Victims:** Chennai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20 lakh (Rs 20,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court (Justice Anita Sumanth) awarded Rs 20 lakh to ex-Sub-Inspector for illegal detention and custodial torture by R-7 K.K. Nagar police from 29 November to 3 December 2002. Pre-record custody, denied in police records, was proved because the police themselves took the petitioner (with his brother) to a private hospital and diagnostic centre and paid for treatment of his injuries. Calling the police records shamelessly false, the Court ordered payment by bank transfer in four weeks (8% interest on delay) and disciplinary proceedings against all three officers with enquiry concluded in 12 weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Such instances were both prior to and after 03.12.2002 and fortify the petitioner’s version of events, that he was in custody of the police even prior to 03.12.2002. This exposes yet again, the shamelessly false contents of the police records and counters.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84698935/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 83
**display title redacted:** Chennai Man v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-06-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 13488 of 2005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84698935/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon except operative para (fetch truncated); Rs 20L figure per agent full-text read.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0033)

## Thanjavur Man v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2023-0043)

**Record:** CW-2023-0043 (compiler id CWC-1298); case GAP3-89-003
**Title:** Thanjavur Man v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: Anita Sumanth
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.33577 of 2005 / 2023:MHC:3480
**Judgment:** 2023-06-26 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-07-27 (2002)
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu; city town: Thanjavur; police station or unit: Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 379; CrPC 176; Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur; Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur; Inspector of Police, Kallaperambur Police Station, Thanjavur District; Sub-Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Police; Police Constable, Thanjavur Police (5 in record)
**Victims:** Thanjavur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Thanjavur man @ a Thanjavur man was picked up around 27.07.2002 for enquiry into electricity-wire theft, beaten with lathis in the station in his wife's presence, formally arrested on 01.08.2002, remanded, and died in custody on 07.08.2002. Though death occurred on 07.08.2002, the body was retained 48 hours and post-mortem conducted only on 09.08.2002, with the requisition itself dated 09.08.2002. On 26.06.2023 the Madras High Court held the authorities let the body decompose so all evidence of violence would stand effaced, calling it a calculated attempt of the police authorities. The Court allowed the writ petition and directed Rs.10,00,000 compensation for custodial torture and demise in police custody within four weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is all too apparent that the attempt of the authorities was to disrupt the integrity of the body and ensure its decomposition so that all evidence of violence would stand effaced / erased. This is a calculated attempt of the police authorities.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43635433/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 30
**display title redacted:** Thanjavur Man v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-06-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023:MHC:3480', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43635433/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held police let body decompose to efface evidence of violence; Rs.10 lakh compensation for custodial torture and death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0043](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0043)

## M. Jeya vs The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department and Others (CW-2023-0023)

**Record:** CW-2023-0023 (compiler id CWC-0366); case TAMILN-002; aliases: CWC-0556
**Title:** M. Jeya vs The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: P. Dhanabal, J.
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) No. 5259 of 2021 / 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
**Judgment:** 2023-08-18 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-01-13 (2019)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Madurai; police station or unit: S.S. Colony Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, S.S. Colony Police Station; Sub-Inspector of Police, S.S. Colony Police Station; Police Constable, S.S. Colony Police Station (3 in record)
**Victims:** Madurai boy, age 17 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25 lakh (Rs 25,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held the State liable for the custodial torture and death of 17-year-old a 17-year-old boy, who was detained by S.S. Colony police in January 2019, assaulted extensively, and succumbed to internal injuries on 24.01.2019. Justice P. Dhanabal held that the record prima facie established that the deceased died while in police custody as a direct consequence of assault. Invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and applying principles from motor accident claims (multiplier method), the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 25,00,000 with 6% interest per annum, deducting the interim relief of Rs 5 lakh already paid. The Court directed that recovery of the compensation from delinquent police officials would abide by the result of the pending criminal trial.

> It prima facie establishes the fact that the deceased died only while he was in custody of the police. Therefore, this Court can very well invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to award compensation for the custodial torture by the police.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/m-jeya-v-principal-secretary-490958.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-custodial-torture-state-to-pay-25-lakh-compensation-to-parents-of-minor-237181); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/article-226-madras-high-court-increases-compensation-to-rs-25-lakhs-in-police-custodial-death-case-1493038); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116687339/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** M. Jeya vs The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-08-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 256', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/m-jeya-v-principal-secretary-490958.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-custodial-torture-state-to-pay-25-lakh-compensation-to-parents-of-minor-237181', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/article-226-madras-high-court-increases-compensation-to-rs-25-lakhs-in-police-custodial-death-case-1493038', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116687339/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court awarded Rs 25 lakh compensation for custodial death of 17-year-old boy tortured by S.S. Colony police.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 17, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 17-year-old boy'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0023)

## L. Nadhan and others vs State by \[name withheld\], CBI (CW-2023-0026)

**Record:** CW-2023-0026 (compiler id CWC-0362); case SWOTHERM-010; aliases: CWC-1469
**Title:** L. Nadhan and others vs State by \[name withheld\], CBI
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: P. Velmurugan, J.
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 618, 622, 624-626, 635, 649, 653-654, 657-660, 662, 665-666, 668-671, 673, 679, 682, 690, 692 of 2011 / 2023:MHC:4526
**Judgment:** 2023-09-29 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-06-20 (1992)
**Place:** Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu; city town: Vachathi; police station or unit: Tamil Nadu Police (Harur / Dharmapuri raid party); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 147; IPC 323; IPC 342; IPC 376; IPC 201; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 s.3(1)(x); SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 s.3(1)(xi); SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 s.3(2)(v)
**Officers (gated display forms):** L. Nadhan & 83 other police personnel (Various ranks) (84 in record)
**Victims:** Vachathi woman (18 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 7.0 yrs; Rs 180 lakh (Rs 1,80,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Replace 'June 1992 the complainant atrocities' with 'June 1992 the complainant atrocities' and '18 the complainant women' with '18 the complainant women'. Note max sentence is 10 years RI under SC/ST Act s.3(2)(v) (para 4 table Sl.No.8), not 'up to 7 years' (7 years is the Sec 376 IPC component only). Totals '215 officials, including 84 police' are not stated in HC text (which speaks of 269 accused, confirms convictions) — retain only if trial-judgment citation added, else drop counts.

> In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, this Court finds all the accused have committed the charged offences. There are no merits in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160871868/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-1992-vachathi-crimes-officials-appeal-against-conviction-dismissed-238972); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/madras-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-tn-forest-department-officials-others-in-1992-vachathi-case); [lawtrend.in](https://lawtrend.in/vachathi-atrocity-hc-upholds-conviction-of-over-200-persons-directs-compensation-for-rape-victims/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 104
**display title redacted:** L. Nadhan and others vs State by \[name withheld\], CBI
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2023:MHC:4526', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2023-09-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2023:MHC:4526', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160871868/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-1992-vachathi-crimes-officials-appeal-against-conviction-dismissed-238972', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/madras-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-tn-forest-department-officials-others-in-1992-vachathi-case', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawtrend.in/vachathi-atrocity-hc-upholds-conviction-of-over-200-persons-directs-compensation-for-rape-victims/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court upheld convictions of 84 police personnel and forest/revenue officials in 1992 Vachathi atrocities (custodial rape, assault, wrongful confinement).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'the complainant'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0026)

## Neyveli Man & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (CW-2024-0032)

**Record:** CW-2024-0032 (compiler id CWC-1304); case GAP3-90-004
**Title:** Neyveli Man & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: S. S. Sundar; G. Arul Murugan
**Case number / citation:** W.P. Nos. 10049 and 21737 of 2023, W.P. No. 32935 of 2022
**Judgment:** 2024-03-01 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2020-10-28 (2020)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu; city town: Neyveli; police station or unit: Neyveli Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 294(b); IPC 392; IPC 397; IPC 506(2); CrPC 176(1-A); Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 22(2); Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Neyveli Police Station, Cuddalore District; Head Constable, Neyveli Police Station, Cuddalore District; Head Constable, Neyveli Police Station, Cuddalore District; Sub-Inspector of Police, Parangipettai Police Station, Cuddalore District; Head Constable, Umangalam Police Station, Cuddalore District; Head Constable, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, Cuddalore District; Head Constable, Umangalam Police Station, Cuddalore District; Head Constable, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, Cuddalore District; Head Constable, Mantharakuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District (9 in record)
**Victims:** Neyveli man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Neyveli man was arrested on 28 October 2020 by Neyveli police in a chain-snatching case, kept in illegal custody and beaten/tortured until production before the Magistrate on 30 October 2020, remanded, and died in hospital on 4 November 2020 while in judicial custody. The SHRC (10 August 2022) held illegal custody and torture proved and awarded Rs.5 lakh to his wife with recovery from nine police personnel plus disciplinary and prosecution recommendations. The Division Bench confirmed the compensation, the recovery (Rs.3 lakh from the Inspector, Rs.25,000 each from the other eight) and the disciplinary-action direction, holding the arrest-to-production gap a clear case of illegal confinement violating Article 22(2). It set aside only the criminal-prosecution direction, accepting on post-mortem and investigation-wing evidence that the death stemmed from epilepsy and coronary disease and ordered disbursal within three weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Clause 21(1) and Clause 21(2) of the impugned order of SHRC, regarding payment of compensation, consequential recovery from 1st to 9th respondents and the direction to initiate the disciplinary action are confirmed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86748406/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/65faf3f37cf14c75c6169206)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26(i)
**display title redacted:** Neyveli Man & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-03-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. Nos. 10049 and 21737 of 2023, W.P. No. 32935 of 2022', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86748406/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/65faf3f37cf14c75c6169206', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SHRC illegal-custody/torture finding upheld; Rs.5L + recovery + dept action confirmed, prosecution set aside.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0032)

## S. Thirumalai Muthusamy v. State; B. Ravichandran & Anr. v. State (CW-2024-0005)

**Record:** CW-2024-0005 (compiler id CWC-0463); case SWCUSTOD-039
**Title:** S. Thirumalai Muthusamy v. State; B. Ravichandran & Anr. v. State
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: K.K. Ramakrishnan
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A.(MD) Nos. 222 and 223 of 2021
**Judgment:** 2024-03-19 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2010-04-04 (2010)
**Place:** Dindigul, Tamil Nadu; city town: Vadamadurai; police station or unit: Vadamadurai PS; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II/34; IPC 166
**Officers (gated display forms):** S. Thirumalai Muthusamy; B. Ravichandran; K. Ponram (3 in record)
**Victims:** Vadamadurai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 10 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

Remove victim name 'soldier a Vadamadurai man' — judgment names no such victim; 'a Vadamadurai man' appears only as 'Mr.a Vadamadurai man, learned Additional Public Prosecutor' (paras 5/head). Deceased is consistently 'the deceased military personnel' (paras 2, 7). Reword to 'a soldier' / 'the deceased military personnel'. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Due to the egocentric attitude of the police officials, the deceased was brutally attacked by them and ultimately he died.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144552315/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** S. Thirumalai Muthusamy v. State; B. Ravichandran & Anr. v. State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A.(MD) Nos. 222 and 223 of 2021', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-03-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A.(MD) Nos. 222 and 223 of 2021', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144552315/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed appeals; 10-yr terms for 3 Vadamadurai policemen confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0005)

## The State represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras vs R. Ravichandran (CW-2024-0007)

**Record:** CW-2024-0007 (compiler id CWC-0372); case TAMILN-008
**Title:** The State represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras vs R. Ravichandran
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A.(MD) No. 174 of 2017
**Judgment:** 2024-04-25 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-11-29 (2012)
**Place:** Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Viralimalai; police station or unit: Viralimalai Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** R. Ravichandran (Special Sub-Inspector of Police) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Viralimalai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed an appeal against acquittal filed by the State, setting aside the trial court's order and convicting Special Sub-Inspector of Police R. Ravichandran under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The officer had demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs 10,000 as monthly mamool from a lorry operator whose vehicles were repeatedly intercepted and targeted by Viralimalai police. Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan held that the trial court erred in disbelieving the trap evidence and the testimony of the shadow witness and complainant. The High Court reversed the acquittal, found the officer guilty, and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment alongside a fine of Rs 5,000 on each count, ordered to run concurrently. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed by setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 2013 dated 13.04.2016 and convicting the accused for the offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125703209/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 55
**display title redacted:** The State represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras vs R. Ravichandran
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-04-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A.(MD) No. 174 of 2017', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125703209/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court allowed State appeal against acquittal, convicting Special Sub-Inspector under PC Act for demanding and accepting Rs 10,000 bribe.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2024-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0007)

## \[name withheld\] Madurai Woman & Ors. (CW-2025-0035)

**Record:** CW-2025-0035 (compiler id CWC-1305); case GAP3-90-005
**Title:** \[name withheld\] Madurai Woman & Ors.
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: G. R. Swaminathan; M. Jothiraman
**Case number / citation:** W.A. (MD) Nos. 1155 of 2020, 1200 and 1216 of 2019
**Judgment:** 2025-02-07 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-01-14 (2019)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Madurai; police station or unit: Thilagar Thidal Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 46(4); IPC 448; IPC 294(b); IPC 323; IPC 506(i)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai City; Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai City; Woman Head Constable, C4 Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai City (1 in record)
**Victims:** Madurai woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Madurai woman was arrested at about 8 p.m. on 14 January 2019, forcibly taken to the police station where she was abused, beaten and cut, then hospitalised and remanded the next day. A single judge held the after-sunset arrest of a woman illegal for breach of section 46(4) CrPC, directed departmental action and Rs.50,000 costs recoverable from the officers' salaries. On 7 February 2025 the Division Bench allowed the appeals of Inspector and Woman Head Constable for want of definite material against them. It dismissed Sub-Inspector's appeal, holding she had not made fair disclosure since her counter contradicted her own remand report, so the costs and departmental-action directions stand as against her.

> For this reason, we decline relief to her. W.A(MD)No.1155 of 2020 stands dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67a61de3a1572e13dd1c6c42); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/deepa-v-svijayalakshmiwatermark-1688279.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] Madurai Woman & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-02-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.A. (MD) Nos. 1155 of 2020, 1200 and 1216 of 2019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67a61de3a1572e13dd1c6c42', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/deepa-v-svijayalakshmiwatermark-1688279.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SI 's appeal dismissed; Rs.50,000 costs + dept action stand; 2 co-officers exonerated.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0035)

## Vriddhachalam Police Inspector vs The State by DSP (CW-2025-0004)

**Record:** CW-2025-0004 (compiler id CWC-0355); case TAMILN-002; aliases: CWC-1422; CWC-1479
**Title:** Vriddhachalam Police Inspector vs The State by DSP
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Prashant Kumar Mishra; Sudhanshu Dhulia
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1522 of 2023 and connected appeals / 2025 INSC 576
**Judgment:** 2025-04-28 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-07-08 (2003)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu; city town: Vriddhachalam; police station or unit: Vriddhachalam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 217; IPC 218; SC/ST Act 1989 s.3(2)(i); SC/ST Act 1989 s.4
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Virudhachalam Police Station, Cuddalore; Sub-Inspector, Virudhachalam Police Station, Cuddalore (2 in record)
**Victims:** Vriddhachalam man; Vriddhachalam woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in the 2003 a Vriddhachalam woman-a Vriddhachalam man honour killing at Vriddhachalam, Cuddalore district, upholding the convictions of Sub-Inspector and Inspector, who knew of the double murder from 8 July 2003 but refused to register an FIR and, nine days later under pressure, manufactured extra-judicial confessions and chargesheeted four innocent Dalit family members of the victim alongside the real culprits to shield the dominant-caste accused. Calling Inspector the main architect of the false FIR and dishonest investigation, the Court upheld his life sentence under Sections 217-218 IPC and Sections 4 and 3(2)(i) of the SC/ST Act, and upheld \[name withheld\] conviction as modified by the High Court to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 217 IPC and Section 4 of the SC/ST Act. Terming honour killing the ugly reality of the entrenched caste structure, the Court awarded Rs 5 lakh victim compensation to the father and step-mother of a Vriddhachalam man, payable by the State of Tamil Nadu. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Evidence, as discussed earlier, makes it clear that \[name withheld\] manufactured the extra-judicial confessions and evidence and thereafter, filed the chargesheet against Dalits on the basis of that evidence.

**Sources (7):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146992794/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29817701/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/tn-honour-killing-case-supreme-court-upholds-life-sentence-of-police-inspector-for-fabricating-evidence-against-dalits-290616); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-11-including-2-police-officers-for-honor-killing-tn-couple); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/k-p-tamilmaran-v-the-statewatermark-1707749.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-convictions-in-kannagi-murugesan-honour-killing-case-of-tamil-nadu-290528); [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/41411/41411_2022_12_1501_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 74(b)
**display title redacted:** Vriddhachalam Police Inspector vs The State by DSP
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2025 INSC 576', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-04-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2025 INSC 576', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146992794/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29817701/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/tn-honour-killing-case-supreme-court-upholds-life-sentence-of-police-inspector-for-fabricating-evidence-against-dalits-290616', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-11-including-2-police-officers-for-honor-killing-tn-couple', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/k-p-tamilmaran-v-the-statewatermark-1707749.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-convictions-in-kannagi-murugesan-honour-killing-case-of-tamil-nadu-290528', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/41411/41411_2022_12_1501_61313_Judgement_28-Apr-2025.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court dismissed appeals and upheld life sentence of Inspector and 2-year sentence of SI for burying the a Vriddhachalam woman-a Vriddhachalam man honour killing and framing innocent Dalits, with Rs 5 lakh victim compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0004)

## Thiruppuvanam Man v. The Home Secretary and Others (CW-2025-0037)

**Record:** CW-2025-0037 (compiler id CWC-1301); case GAP3-90-001
**Title:** Thiruppuvanam Man v. The Home Secretary and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: K.K. Ramakrishnan
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) Nos.22169 and 22170 of 2021
**Judgment:** 2025-05-15 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2010-07-26 (2010)
**Place:** Sivagangai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Thiruppuvanam; police station or unit: Thiruppuvanam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 294(b); IPC 420; IPC 506(ii); Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, Sivagangai District; Police personnel, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, Sivagangai District (2 in record)
**Victims:** Thiruppuvanam man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Thiruppuvanam man was picked up after midnight on 26.07.2010 by SI and HC of Thiruppuvanam Police Station, brutally beaten in custody, released the same night, and admitted to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai with internal injuries. The officers then foisted a sand-theft case (Crime No.283/2010) on him, which ended in acquittal in C.C. No.240/2019; a DSP enquiry and departmental proceedings recorded custodial torture against the two officers, though the punishment was later recalled without stated reason. On 15.05.2025 the Madurai Bench held the departmental enquiry finding still holds good, ordered the two officers to personally pay Rs.5 lakh compensation (Rs.2.5 lakh each) within two weeks, and directed the DGP to decide afresh through an IG-rank officer whether the punishment is sustainable, listing compliance on 02.12.2025. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs from the 5th and 6th respondents.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16672997/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9.1
**display title redacted:** Thiruppuvanam Man v. The Home Secretary and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-05-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(MD) Nos.22169 and 22170 of 2021', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16672997/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held departmental torture finding still good; two Thiruppuvanam officers to personally pay Rs.5 lakh; DGP to revisit punishment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0037)

## Chennai Man v. The State Human Rights Commission and Others (CW-2025-0040)

**Record:** CW-2025-0040 (compiler id CWC-1302); case GAP3-90-002
**Title:** Chennai Man v. The State Human Rights Commission and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: M. Sundar; Hemant Chandangoudar
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No.4456 of 2020
**Judgment:** 2025-06-06 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2016-03-11 (2016)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Chennai; police station or unit: F2 Egmore Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 174; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Home Guard, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai; Police personnel, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai (2 in record)
**Victims:** Chennai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Chennai man was picked up for interrogation around 11 p.m. on 11.03.2016 and subjected to custodial violence; he died on 12.06.2016, with the question whether the violence was the proximate cause of death left open. The Tamil Nadu SHRC took suo-motu cognizance on 13.03.2016, held custodial violence established on evidence, and awarded Rs.2 lakh on 12.12.2019, which the State never challenged. His mother \[name withheld\] sought enhancement before the Madras High Court. On 06.06.2025 a Division Bench recorded proved custodial violence and, by consent, raised total compensation to Rs.5 lakh (Rs.3 lakh additional from the Home Department), leaving FIR No.1130/2016 under section 174 CrPC and recovery from erring officials to proceed independently. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, we refrain from dilating on facts and we deem it appropriate to write that it will suffice to say that this is a case of established / proved custodial violence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53572420/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Chennai Man v. The State Human Rights Commission and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-06-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No.4456 of 2020', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53572420/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Division Bench recorded proved custodial violence; enhanced total compensation to Rs.5 lakh on consent; s.174 CrPC probe left open.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0040)

## Puzhal Man and \[name withheld\] vs TN State Human Rights Commission (CW-2025-0007)

**Record:** CW-2025-0007 (compiler id CWC-0779); case TAMILN-007; aliases: CWC-0360; CWC-0570; CWC-1472
**Title:** Puzhal Man and \[name withheld\] vs TN State Human Rights Commission
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: J. Nisha Banu; M. Jothiraman
**Case number / citation:** W.P. Nos. 4569/2023 & 17866/2024 / 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 3002
**Judgment:** 2025-06-12 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-12-20 (2013)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Puzhal; police station or unit: M3 Puzhal Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, M3 Puzhal Police Station, Chennai; Sub-Inspector, M3 Puzhal Police Station, Chennai (2 in record)
**Victims:** Puzhal man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the certiorari writ petitions of Inspector and Sub-Inspector of M3 Puzhal Police Station, upholding the Tamil Nadu SHRC order dated 13 November 2018 in SHRC No. 9744 of 2013 and the consequential GO(D) No. 987 of 2022. The SHRC had found that the officers, after falsely implicating complainant \[name withheld\] in Crime No. 2046 of 2013, picked him up around 3 AM on 20 December 2013, kept him in the lock-up till 22 December, stripped and beat him, coerced gold jewellery worth lakhs, and assaulted him again near the Kathirvedu bridge while taking him to jail. The Court held the SHRC recommendation binding and enforceable under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, sustained the Rs 1 lakh compensation to the complainant with recovery from the two officers, and held police officials must respect human dignity and human-rights standing orders. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The State Human Rights Commission after conducting enquiry comes to a conclusion that it is seen from the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, complainant/4th respondent/Mr.a Puzhal man was tortured and arrested by the police. Though there is no serious injury to Mr.a Puzhal man, the torture made out him is a mental torture and the same also amounts to violation of Human Rights.

**Sources (6):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/babu-rajendra-bose-v-tnshrc-606445.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-police-brutality-compensation-human-dignity-295731); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/madras-high-court-upholds-shrc-order-to-recover-rs-1-lakh-from-cops-for-custodial-torture-1499924); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/27/mad-hc-compensation-for-custodial-torture-victim/); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/madras-high-court/d-babu-rajendra-bose-v-the-tamil-nadu-state-human-rights-commissioner-human-rights-police-torture-1582509); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198144494/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Puzhal Man and \[name withheld\] vs TN State Human Rights Commission
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-06-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2025 SCC OnLine Mad 3002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/babu-rajendra-bose-v-tnshrc-606445.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-police-brutality-compensation-human-dignity-295731', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/madras-high-court-upholds-shrc-order-to-recover-rs-1-lakh-from-cops-for-custodial-torture-1499924', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/27/mad-hc-compensation-for-custodial-torture-victim/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/madras-high-court/d-babu-rajendra-bose-v-the-tamil-nadu-state-human-rights-commissioner-human-rights-police-torture-1582509', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198144494/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madras High Court Division Bench dismissed officers writs and upheld SHRC Rs 1 lakh compensation to a Puzhal man for custodial torture at M3 Puzhal PS, recoverable from Inspector and SI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0007)

## Government of Tamil Nadu v. P. Amaravathi (CW-2025-0042)

**Record:** CW-2025-0042 (compiler id CWC-1303); case GAP3-90-003
**Title:** Government of Tamil Nadu v. P. Amaravathi
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: Anita Sumanth; N. Senthilkumar
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No. 2874 of 2023 / 2025:MHC:1533
**Judgment:** 2025-06-26 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-04-05 (1995)
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu; city town: Tiruchirappalli; police station or unit: Uraiyur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 174; CrPC 200
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Uraiyur Police Station, Tiruchirappalli; Police personnel, Police team, Uraiyur Police Station matter (2 in record)
**Victims:** Tiruchirappalli man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10.5 lakh (Rs 10,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. A Tiruchirappalli man was picked up from his residence for interrogation around 5 a.m. on 5 April 1995 by Inspector, \[name withheld\] and other police officials, and died the same day; the post-mortem found death by shock and haemorrhage from multiple contusions. A single judge allowed his widow's writ petition in 2017 and awarded Rs.10.5 lakh compensation against the State. On 26 June 2025 a Division Bench dismissed the State's appeal, holding that the injuries could only have been inflicted by the police in whose custody a Tiruchirappalli man was, that the benefit-of-doubt acquittal of A2 (the product of a half-baked investigation confined to two officers) was no bar to compensation, and that the victim-compensation scheme cap did not apply. The court confirmed the compensation and ordered disbursal of the amount lying in court deposit with accrued interest. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This fact is admitted and in light of the same, particularly on account of the fact that he was in the custody of the police during the period when the contusions had occurred leading to hemorrhage and subsequent death, there is no doubt in our mind that the police officials were responsible for the injuries/contusions leading to the demise of a Tiruchirappalli man

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73412366/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Government of Tamil Nadu v. P. Amaravathi
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-06-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,050,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2025:MHC:1533', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73412366/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** DB dismissed State appeal; custodial-torture death finding and Rs.10.5L compensation confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0042](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0042)

## Chennai Man v. State (NDPS Case - Fabricated Evidence) (CW-2025-0055)

**Record:** CW-2025-0055 (compiler id CWC-1329); case cop-tn-hc-5
**Title:** Chennai Man v. State (NDPS Case - Fabricated Evidence)
**Court:** Madras High Court (Principal Seat); judges: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 1202 of 2025 / 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) (unreported)
**Judgment:** 2025-08-12 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2021-12-06 (2021)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; police station or unit: V4 Rajamangalam Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), NDPS Act; Section 50, NDPS Act
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, V4 Rajamangalam Police Station; Police Constable, V4 Rajamangalam Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Chennai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Madras High Court acquitted \[name withheld\] in an NDPS case where he was convicted for possession of 20.3 kg of ganja. The Single Judge found that the police had fabricated the case: the seizure mahazar, arrest report, and arrest intimation all contained the crime number (Crime No. 931 of 2021) before the FIR was even registered. The court noted the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness from the public despite the alleged seizure occurring in a marketplace. The informant and investigating officer were the same person (PW1), and all documents were typed, indicating they were prepared in the police station rather than at the scene. The court applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Kaaljit Singh v. State of Punjab that such discrepancies create serious doubts fatal to the prosecution case.

> Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is not legitimate and creates doubt over the case of the prosecution... the entire case of the prosecution is foisted one and the prosecution failed to prove the charge in the manner known to law.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13125224/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 6-7
**display title redacted:** Chennai Man v. State (NDPS Case - Fabricated Evidence)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-08-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court (Principal Seat)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court (Principal Seat) recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2025 LiveLaw (Mad) (unreported)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13125224/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** sections wrongly include 'Section 21, Indian Evidence Act' - the judgment never mentions any Evidence Act section (it cites NDPS ss. 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) & 22(C), s.50 NDPS, s.415 BNSS, and Art. 21 Constitution); remove.; Minor imprecision: summary says seizure occurred 'in a marketplace'; the judgment says the arrest took place at the market near Villivakkam railway station - essentially accurate, not a blocker.; Everything else verified: Crl.A. No. 1202 of 2025, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, decided 12.08.2025; 20.3 kg ganja, Crime No. 931 of 2021, V4 Rajamangalam PS Chennai, incident 06.12.2021; trial court 10-year RI + Rs 1 lakh fine conviction set aside; acquittal; quote verbatim (paras 6 and 6.1); fabrication found (crime number in seizure mahazar/arrest memo before FIR registration, informant = IO, no independent witness).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2025-0055](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0055)

## Chennai Man v. State (NDPS Case - Fabricated Documents) (CW-2025-0056)

**Record:** CW-2025-0056 (compiler id CWC-1330); case cop-tn-hc-6
**Title:** Chennai Man v. State (NDPS Case - Fabricated Documents)
**Court:** Madras High Court (Principal Seat); judges: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 41, 83 & 212 of 2023 / 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) (unreported)
**Judgment:** 2025-08-21 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-12-21 (2019)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu; police station or unit: NIB-CID, Chennai; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), NDPS Act; Section 50, NDPS Act
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Chennai; Police Constable, NIB-CID, Chennai; Police Constable, NIB-CID, Chennai; Police Constable, NIB-CID, Chennai (4 in record)
**Victims:** Chennai man; Chennai man; Chennai man; Chennai man (4 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Madras High Court acquitted four accused in an NDPS case involving alleged possession of 54 kg of ganja at Egmore Railway Station. The Single Judge found multiple fabrications by the NIB-CID police: (1) all documents (secret information, search notice, seizure mahazar, arrest report, inspection memo) were typed, indicating preparation in the police station rather than at the scene; (2) joint search notice and joint consent were obtained from all four accused, violating Section 50(1) NDPS Act which requires individual communication of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate; (3) the prosecution failed to produce the general diary or permission from a superior officer despite PW1's deposition; (4) there was an unexplained 9-day delay in producing the contraband before the trial court. The court held these discrepancies created suspicion that a false case was registered.

> All the documents such as secret information, search information, seizure mahazar, arrest report, inspection memo, etc. were in typed versions. There is no evidence to show that PW1 and his team went to the scene of crime with all equipments such as computer, printer, etc. Therefore, all the documents were already prepared in the police station and a false case was registered against the appellants.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163929601/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 7-8
**display title redacted:** Chennai Man v. State (NDPS Case - Fabricated Documents)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-08-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court (Principal Seat)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court (Principal Seat) recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2025 LiveLaw (Mad) (unreported)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163929601/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** sections wrongly include 'Section 52A, NDPS Act' - the judgment does not mention s.52A (it discusses NDPS ss. 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B)/(C), 50/50(1), and s.374(2) CrPC); remove.; Minor: paragraph 2 of the judgment gives the incident date as 21.01.2019 while paragraphs 4, 7 and 12 say 21.12.2019; the register's 2019-12-21 matches the latter and the actual seizure/production dates.; Everything else verified: Crl.A. Nos. 41, 83 & 212 of 2023, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, decided 21.08.2025; 54 kg ganja at Egmore Railway Station, NIB-CID Chennai (Crime No. 116 of 2019); four accused (\[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]) acquitted and trial convictions (CC.No.81 of 2020) set aside; quote verbatim (para 8); joint search notice/joint consent violation of s.50(1); all documents typed/prepared in station; unexplained 9-day delay in producing contraband.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2025-0056](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0056)

## Madurai Man vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai (CW-2025-0025)

**Record:** CW-2025-0025 (compiler id CWC-0821); case TAMILN-011; aliases: CWC-0375
**Title:** Madurai Man vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A.(MD) No. 351 of 2023 / 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
**Judgment:** 2025-10-15 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2021-06-26 (2021)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Madurai; police station or unit: Thideer Nagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** NDPS Act 1985 s.42
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, C1 Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai; Police personnel, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai; Police personnel, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai (3 in record)
**Victims:** Madurai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court acquitted a Madurai man (A4), who had been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment plus Rs 1 lakh fine by the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai on 15.03.2023 for alleged possession of 24 kg ganja seized on 26.06.2021. The Court found that P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 conspired to secure the conviction by giving false evidence, noting the Section 42 information memo was a typed copy though P.W.2 claimed handwriting, the mahazar bore no signature of the appellant, and P.W.4 falsely claimed to have signed the memo. It set aside the conviction, ordered the fine refunded, directed the three officers to jointly pay Rs 10 lakh compensation within one month, and directed the Director General of Police to complete an independent conduct enquiry within one month. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> From the above circumstances, this Court holds that the prosecution not only failed to prove the compliance of Section 42 but has also maneuvered to get conviction by leading false evidence. Therefore this Court is inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that false case was registered against the appellant.

**Sources (6):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/a-vignesh-v-state-627825.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-police-officers-compensation-10-lakh-conviction-ndps-act-307977); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/madras-high-court/madurai-a-vignesh-v-the-state-rupees-ten-lakh-compensation-ndps-case-1595988); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/madras-high-court-slaps-10-lakh-fine-on-3-cops-for-false-evidence-in-ndps-case); [s3hvtw.courtbook.in](https://s3hvtw.courtbook.in/2025/10/Vignesh_Vs_State.pdf); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/madras-high-court-slams-police-for-fake-ganja-case-orders-rs-10-lakh-compensation-to-acquitted-accused-1536349)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Madurai Man vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-10-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 377', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/a-vignesh-v-state-627825.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-police-officers-compensation-10-lakh-conviction-ndps-act-307977', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/madras-high-court/madurai-a-vignesh-v-the-state-rupees-ten-lakh-compensation-ndps-case-1595988', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/madras-high-court-slaps-10-lakh-fine-on-3-cops-for-false-evidence-in-ndps-case', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://s3hvtw.courtbook.in/2025/10/Vignesh_Vs_State.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/madras-high-court-slams-police-for-fake-ganja-case-orders-rs-10-lakh-compensation-to-acquitted-accused-1536349', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Madurai Bench acquitted NDPS accused, found three Thideer Nagar officers gave false evidence, ordered them to jointly pay Rs 10 lakh compensation plus DGP enquiry.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0025)

## Madurai Man v. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai (CW-2025-0048)

**Record:** CW-2025-0048 (compiler id CWC-0857); case SWDERELI-002
**Title:** Madurai Man v. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: K. K. Ramakrishnan
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A.(MD) No. 351 of 2023 (against Spl.C.C. No. 329 of 2021, I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai)
**Judgment:** 2025-10-15 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2021-06-26 (2021)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Madurai; police station or unit: Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai (P.W.2); Police personnel, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai (P.W.3, investigating officer); Police personnel, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai (P.W.4, superior officer) (3 in record)
**Victims:** Madurai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a Madurai man criminal appeal, setting aside his 10-year NDPS conviction and sentence for alleged possession of 24 kg ganja at Melavasal on 26 June 2021. The Court found P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 of Thideer Nagar police station conspired to secure conviction by hook or crook through false evidence, including a fabricated Section 42 NDPS compliance document. Calling it an unholy alliance to secure conviction on false evidence, the Court acquitted a Madurai man, directed the three officers to jointly pay Rs 10 lakh compensation within one month, and directed the DGP, Chennai, to hold an inquiry into their conduct. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, this Court sees a unholy alliance between the witnesses to secure conviction based on false evidence.

**Sources (4):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/avignesh-v-the-statewatermark-1751653.pdf); [lawstreet.co](https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/madras-hc-orders-three-police-offciers-to-pay-10-lakh-for-fabricating-evidence-in-ndps-case); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-police-officers-compensation-10-lakh-conviction-ndps-act-307977); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/madras-high-court-slaps-10-lakh-fine-on-3-cops-for-false-evidence-in-ndps-case)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Madurai Man v. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-10-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Crl.A.(MD) No. 351 of 2023 (against Spl.C.C. No. 329 of 2021, I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/avignesh-v-the-statewatermark-1751653.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/madras-hc-orders-three-police-offciers-to-pay-10-lakh-for-fabricating-evidence-in-ndps-case', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-police-officers-compensation-10-lakh-conviction-ndps-act-307977', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/madras-high-court-slaps-10-lakh-fine-on-3-cops-for-false-evidence-in-ndps-case', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** NDPS conviction set aside; 3 unnamed officers to jointly pay Rs 10L for false evidence; DGP inquiry ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0048](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0048)

## State of Tamil Nadu v. \[name withheld\] (Custodial Death of a Minor) (CW-2026-0062)

**Record:** CW-2026-0062 (compiler id CWC-1325); case cop-tn-hc-1
**Title:** State of Tamil Nadu v. \[name withheld\] (Custodial Death of a Minor)
**Court:** Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court; judges: G. Jayachandran; K.K. Ramakrishnan
**Case number / citation:** W.A.(MD) No. 823 of 2024 / 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) (unreported)
**Judgment:** 2026-01-07 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-01-01 (2019)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; police station or unit: S.S. Colony Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21, Constitution of India; Section 357A, CrPC
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, S.S. Colony Police Station; Special Sub-Inspector, S.S. Colony Police Station; Head Constable, S.S. Colony Police Station; Grade I Constable, S.S. Colony Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Madurai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 23 lakh (Rs 23,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court modified the compensation awarded by a Single Judge for the custodial death of a 17-year-old boy, \[name withheld\], who died in 2019 after being picked up by S.S. Colony police for an alleged jewellery theft. The Division Bench reduced the multiplier from 18 to 16 but affirmed the principle that compensation in custodial death cases need not strictly follow motor accident formulae. The court directed the State to pay the balance of Rs 18 lakh with 6% interest from September 2024. The Single Judge had found the boy was kept in illegal custody for three days and subjected to torture, with post-mortem revealing 25 ante-mortem injuries.

> This Court is of the view that while paying compensation in the case of a custodial death, we cannot be very strict in applying the formula and though the learned Single Judge has erroneously applied the multiplier '18' instead of '16', we do not want to interfere with the compensation awarded, except to say that even according to the formula adopted by the learned single Judge, the compensation will be only Rs.22,98,000/- and should be rounded off to Rs.23,00,000/-.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165886415/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49692536/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** para 3
**display title redacted:** State of Tamil Nadu v. \[name withheld\] (Custodial Death of a Minor)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-01-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (Mad) (unreported)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165886415/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49692536/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Victim is a minor (17 years old) and his name '\[name withheld\]' appears in victims\[0\].name and in the case_title; per register rules minors must not be named - redact.; The judgment itself (Indian Kanoon 165886415) never names the deceased - it refers only to 'the writ petitioner's son'; the name '\[name withheld\]' is unverified.; incident_date 2019-01-01 is an unverified placeholder; the source only establishes the death was in 2019.; Everything else verified: W.A.(MD) No. 823 of 2024, Madurai Bench (G. Jayachandran & K.K. Ramakrishnan), decided 07.01.2026, S.S. Colony PS Madurai; Single Judge Rs 25 lakh reduced to Rs 23,00,000 (22,98,000 rounded), balance Rs 18 lakh with 6% interest from 27.09.2024; quote verbatim (para 3); adverse finding against police for custodial death of a 17-year-old.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0062](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0062)

## Mrs. Guduvancherry Woman vs The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu and Anr. (CW-2026-0007)

**Record:** CW-2026-0007 (compiler id CWC-0361); case TAMILN-008; aliases: CWC-0576
**Title:** Mrs. Guduvancherry Woman vs The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu and Anr.
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: Anita Sumanth, J.; Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 14267 of 2021 / 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
**Judgment:** 2026-02-01 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2018-12-01 (2018)
**Place:** Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Kanchipuram); city town: Guduvancherry; police station or unit: Guduvancherry Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Guduvancherry Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Guduvancherry woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Sub-Inspector challenging an order of the State Human Rights Commission finding her guilty of custodial torture and awarding Rs 5 lakh compensation to victim \[name withheld\]. The Commission found that the officer assaulted the complainant with hands and lathi at Guduvancherry Police Station in December 2018, causing severe injuries across both knees, hands, and legs. The High Court observed that the serious allegations remained uncontroverted by the officer, indicating tacit admission, and deprecated her failure to file a counter or produce records. Finding no merit or grounds for interference under Article 226, the Division Bench left the compensation award and recommendation for disciplinary action intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade us to interfere with the impugned order on the ground that the Respondent No.2 herein agreed to withdraw the complaint subject to payment of Rs.3,50,000/- during the course of her examination and thereby contending that the complaint is intended only to extract money from the petitioner, we are unable to agree with the said contention for the simple reason that the serious allegation of assault and abuse of power levelled against the petitioner herein in the complaint made before the respondent commission remained uncontroverted, thereby suggesting tacit admission on the part of the petitioner herein.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/02/25/magitha-anna-christy-v-shrc-658270.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-police-brutality-5-lakh-compensation-upheld-524520); [bharathorizon.com](https://bharathorizon.com/politics/law-order/madras-hc-backs-shrcs-rs-5-lakh-fine-for-police-si.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Mrs. Guduvancherry Woman vs The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-02-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 90', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/02/25/magitha-anna-christy-v-shrc-658270.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-police-brutality-5-lakh-compensation-upheld-524520', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://bharathorizon.com/politics/law-order/madras-hc-backs-shrcs-rs-5-lakh-fine-for-police-si.html', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court dismissed SI writ petition challenging SHRC order awarding Rs 5 lakh compensation and recommending disciplinary action for custodial torture.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0007)

## A.C. Karthikeyan and Others vs State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2026-0047)

**Record:** CW-2026-0047 (compiler id CWC-0858); case GAP2-40-001
**Title:** A.C. Karthikeyan and Others vs State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: G.R. Swaminathan; R. Kalaimathi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(MD) Nos.22673, 24168, 23338 and 23362 of 2022 and 14715 of 2023
**Judgment:** 2026-02-27 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-05-30 (2019)
**Place:** Kanniyakumari, Tamil Nadu; city town: Marthandam; police station or unit: Marthandam Police Station / DSP Thuckalay Special Squad; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Protection of Human Rights Act 1993; COTPA 2003 s.24(1); Juvenile Justice Act 2015 s.77; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** A.C. Karthikeyan (Deputy Superintendent of Police); R. Senthilkumar (Inspector of Police); Mohan Kumar; M. Stephen Arul Raj (4 in record)
**Victims:** Marthandam man, age 63 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 6 lakh (Rs 6,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Division Bench upheld the SHRC finding that 63-year-old a Marthandam man was falsely implicated in a gutka case, illegally arrested and assaulted in custody at Kotticode police station on 30-31 May 2019, sustaining head injuries proved by medical records. The court rejected the police claim that a Marthandam man injured himself as fantastic and fastened liability on the DSP who directed the action, the Inspector who made the illegal arrest without following D.K. Basu guidelines, and two special-squad members. It dismissed the officers writ petitions and confirmed the SHRC award of Rs.6,00,000 compensation with recovery of Rs.3,00,000 from the DSP and Rs.1,00,000 each from the other three. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We can invoke the rule of commonsense and easily conclude that the story that the complainant hit himself and that is how the head injuries were caused is fantastic.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53901862/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/madras-high-court-scoffs-at-police-claim-that-63-year-old-caused-his-own-head-injuries-in-police-custody)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** A.C. Karthikeyan and Others vs State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-02-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 600,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(MD) Nos.22673, 24168, 23338 and 23362 of 2022 and 14715 of 2023', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53901862/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/madras-high-court-scoffs-at-police-claim-that-63-year-old-caused-his-own-head-injuries-in-police-custody', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed officers writs, confirmed SHRC Rs.6L award for custodial assault of 63-year-old.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0047](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0047)

## The Director General of Police and Others vs Thirukoilur Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police (Head Constable at relevant time) (CW-2026-0052)

**Record:** CW-2026-0052 (compiler id CWC-0859); case GAP2-40-003
**Title:** The Director General of Police and Others vs Thirukoilur Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police (Head Constable at relevant time)
**Court:** Madras High Court; judges: S.M. Subramaniam; N. Senthilkumar
**Case number / citation:** W.A. No.1850 of 2026 / 2026:MHC:2846
**Judgment:** 2026-07-14 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-11-25 (2014)
**Place:** Kallakurichi, Tamil Nadu (district at time: Villupuram); city town: Thirukoilur; police station or unit: Arakandanallur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** TN Police Subordinate Services (D&A) Rules 1955 Rule 3(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police (Head Constable at relevant time), Arakandanallur Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Special Sub-Inspector appeared drunk to depose before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirukoilur, on 25 November 2014; he was compulsorily retired, modified on appeal to postponement of increment for three years with cumulative effect. The Writ Court had quashed the penalty for want of blood and urine tests, but the Division Bench held that departmental proof needs only preponderance of probabilities and that the Drunkenness Certificate with the Magistrate contemporaneous observation sufficed. The court allowed the State appeal, restoring the penalty, and directed the DGP to issue a decorum circular for police deposing in courts.

> Witnesses including the police officials, while deposing before the Courts, in connection with the criminal cases or any other case, are expected to maintain decorum and discipline and depose the statement in a truthful manner. This being the settled legal position, any misconduct committed inside a Court Hall cannot, under any circumstances, be tolerated.

**Sources (2):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/18/2026mhc2846-verdictum-1781097.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/2026-mhc-2846-director-general-of-police-v-v-arumuram-1618011)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** The Director General of Police and Others vs Thirukoilur Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police (Head Constable at relevant time)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-07-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2026:MHC:2846', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/18/2026mhc2846-verdictum-1781097.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/2026-mhc-2846-director-general-of-police-v-v-arumuram-1618011', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC allowed State appeal, restored increment-cut penalty for drunkenness inside court hall.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0052](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0052)

## Alangulam Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others (CW-2026-0053)

**Record:** CW-2026-0053 (compiler id CWC-0868); case GAP2-40-004
**Title:** Alangulam Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: L. Victoria Gowri
**Case number / citation:** W.P.Crl.(MD) No.3809 of 2026 / 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
**Judgment:** 2026-07-16 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-04-18 (2026)
**Place:** Tenkasi, Tamil Nadu; city town: Alangulam; police station or unit: All Women Police Station, Alangulam; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Dowry Prohibition Act 1961; BNS
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Alangulam; Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Alangulam (2 in record)
**Victims:** Alangulam man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Madras High Court records the following account. Justice L. Victoria Gowri held the Inspector and Sub-Inspector of AWPS Alangulam guilty of serious dereliction of statutory duty for closing a dowry complaint disclosing cognizable offences through a private part-refund settlement instead of registering an FIR. The court ordered each officer to pay Rs.1,00,000 compensation personally to the complainant by 24 July 2026 (Rs.2,00,000 total), declaring it final public-law accountability. Since the officers showed remorse and had undergone ten days suspension, the court permitted revocation of suspension and barred further departmental proceedings on the same matter. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Nevertheless, the lapse committed by respondents 2 and 3 cannot be ignored, since their failure to register a case despite allegations disclosing cognizable offences resulted in avoidable hardship and prejudice to the petitioner.

**Sources (3):** [s3.courtbook.in](https://s3.courtbook.in/2026/07/p_p_a_v_state_of_tamil_nadu_others.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/police-pay-compensation-closing-dowry-complaint-not-registering-fir-542812); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/madras-hc-orders-two-women-cops-to-pay-1-lakh-each-for-trying-to-settle-dowry-dispute-instead-of-lodging-fir)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Alangulam Man vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-07-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 338', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://s3.courtbook.in/2026/07/p_p_a_v_state_of_tamil_nadu_others.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/police-pay-compensation-closing-dowry-complaint-not-registering-fir-542812', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/madras-hc-orders-two-women-cops-to-pay-1-lakh-each-for-trying-to-settle-dowry-dispute-instead-of-lodging-fir', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held AWPS officers guilty of dereliction for closing dowry complaint; Rs.1L each personal compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0053](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0053)

## Aftab Ahmad Khan v. The State of Hyderabad (CW-1954-0002)

**Record:** CW-1954-0002 (compiler id CWC-0540); case SWEXTORT-003
**Title:** Aftab Ahmad Khan v. The State of Hyderabad
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Ghulam Hasan; B.K. Mukherjea; Vivian Bose
**Case number / citation:** 1954 AIR 436; 1955 SCR 588
**Judgment:** 1954-05-06 (1954, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1948-09-13 (1948)
**Place:** Warangal, Telangana (district at time: Warangal (then Hyderabad State)); city town: Rajole; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307; IPC 347; IPC 384
**Officers (gated display forms):** Aftab Ahmad Khan (Reserve Inspector of Police) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rajole man; Rajole resident; Rajole resident (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court maintained the convictions of Reserve Inspector Aftab Ahmad Khan, who with a police party seized two villagers at Rajole on 13 September 1948, shot dead one person and injured others at Korivi, confined the two villagers overnight, and released them on 14 September only after extorting Rs 200. The Special Judge, Warangal, had sentenced him to death for murder, life for attempt to murder, and two years each for confinement and extortion, affirmed by the Hyderabad High Court via third-judge reference after a split. The Supreme Court upheld the joint trial under Section 235 CrPC as one transaction and, by convention where High Court judges had divided, commuted only the death sentence to transportation for life with all sentences concurrent. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> He released P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 on the intercession of certain persons but kept P. W. 5 and P. W. 9 in wrongful confinement and released them only next morning after extorting Rs. 200 from P. W. 5.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1576995/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** extortion
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Aftab Ahmad Khan v. The State of Hyderabad
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1954 AIR 436; 1955 SCR 588', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1954-05-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '1954 AIR 436; 1955 SCR 588', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1576995/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** extortion
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court maintained Reserve Inspector's convictions for murder, attempt, confinement and extortion, commuting only the death sentence to transportation for life.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1954-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1954-0002)

## Public Prosecutor vs Warangal Police Sub-Inspector of Police and others (CW-1963-0003)

**Record:** CW-1963-0003 (compiler id CWC-0386); case TELANG-009
**Title:** Public Prosecutor vs Warangal Police Sub-Inspector of Police and others
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: Basi Reddy
**Case number / citation:** AIR 1964 AP 548
**Judgment:** 1963-11-26 (1963, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1961-04-24 (1961)
**Place:** Warangal, Telangana; city town: Warangal; police station or unit: Mathwada Police Station / Central Crime Station Warangal; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 109; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Syed Hasan Ali (Sub-Inspector of Police); C. Janardhanrao (Sub-Inspector of Police); Ahmed Ali (Police Constable); G.K. Narasimhamurthy (Police Constable); K. Ramaiah (Police Constable) (5 in record)
**Victims:** Warangal man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 3 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the State's appeal against acquittal in part, reversing the trial court order and convicting two Sub-Inspectors and three Police Constables of Mathwada Police Station and Central Crime Station, Warangal. Suspect a Warangal man had been detained and severely tortured through the night of 24 April 1961 to extort a confession, resulting in his death and the subsequent clandestine disposal of his body. While finding that murderous intent was not established beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court held that the officers voluntarily caused hurt to extort confessions. The Court convicted the two Sub-Inspectors under IPC 330 read with 109, the three Constables under IPC 330, and one Sub-Inspector additionally under IPC 201, sentencing each of them to three years' rigorous imprisonment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> torturing suspects with a view to extorting information from them, is a crude, barbarous and reprehensible method of investigating and detecting crime. Those who are entrusted with the duty of enforcing the law, must learn to obey the law.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1311171/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 113
**display title redacted:** Public Prosecutor vs Warangal Police Sub-Inspector of Police and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1963-11-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1964 AP 548', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1311171/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Andhra Pradesh HC reversed trial court acquittals, convicting 2 Sub-Inspectors and 3 Constables to 3 years RI under IPC 330/109/201 for custodial torture and death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-1963-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1963-0003)

## Mahabubnagar Woman vs Govt. of A.P. and Ors. (CW-1996-0004)

**Record:** CW-1996-0004 (compiler id CWC-0378); case TELANG-001
**Title:** Mahabubnagar Woman vs Govt. of A.P. and Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: Motilal B. Naik, J.
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 8405 of 1994 / 1996(2) ALT 850
**Judgment:** 1996-06-04 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1990-08-11 (1990)
**Place:** Mahabubnagar, Telangana (district at time: Mahaboobnagar); city town: Mahabubnagar; police station or unit: Rural Police Station, Mahaboobnagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Article 21; Constitution of India Article 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Rural Police Station, Mahaboobnagar (0 in record)
**Victims:** Mahabubnagar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court (pre-bifurcation; incident in present-day Telangana) held that a Mahabubnagar man, a rickshaw puller detained at Rural Police Station, Mahaboobnagar from 07-08-1990 to 11-08-1990, died of custodial torture. The Court relied on the magisterial and CBCID enquiry reports and post-mortem injuries (one abrasion and four contusions), disproving the police story of an insect bite, corroborated by a negative viscera report. It allowed the writ petition, directed the State to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation within two months apportioned equally among the widow and four minor children, plus Rs 10,000 costs, and ordered enquiries to identify the responsible personnel with liberty to take action including recovery of the compensation from them. No individual officer was named or fixed with liability in the judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In order to unearth the mystery in this case, the first respondent shall cause necessary enquiries as to who are the police personnel of Rural Police Station, Mahaboobnagar, responsible for the injuries found on the body of the deceased \[name withheld\] as is evident from the post mortem report and take appropriate action against such personnel including that of recovery of the compensation amount to be paid to the petitioner as directed above.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1321816/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/703894/smt-ratlavat-chandi-vs-govt-of-ap-and-others/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/443236/smt-ratlavat-chandi-vs-secretary-department)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 30
**display title redacted:** Mahabubnagar Woman vs Govt. of A.P. and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-06-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1996(2) ALT 850', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1321816/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/703894/smt-ratlavat-chandi-vs-govt-of-ap-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/443236/smt-ratlavat-chandi-vs-secretary-department', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** AP High Court held a Mahabubnagar man died of custodial torture at Rural PS Mahaboobnagar; Rs 1 lakh compensation plus Rs 10,000 costs; State to identify and act against personnel.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1996-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0004)

## Hyderabad Woman v. \[name withheld\] and Others (CW-1996-0016)

**Record:** CW-1996-0016 (compiler id CWC-0910); case GAP2-5-001
**Title:** Hyderabad Woman v. \[name withheld\] and Others
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: P.S. Mishra; Syed Saadatulla Hussaini
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 21340 of 1995 / 1996(4) ALD 150
**Judgment:** 1996-08-08 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-03-06 (1995)
**Place:** Hyderabad, Telangana; city town: Hyderabad; police station or unit: Nallakunta Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art.21; Constitution Art.226; CrPC s.173(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Nallakunta Police Station, Hyderabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Hyderabad woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court (treating the petitioner's letter to the CJI as an Article 226 petition) held that a woman advocate picked up on 6 March 1995 was beaten, made to sign blank papers, and shuttled between police stations for over 26 hours without FIR, crime number or prompt production before a Magistrate. The Court found the arrest was procured by the then Public Prosecutor to pressure her to withdraw a habeas corpus petition and was executed by the Inspector of Nallakunta Police Station. It ordered the State to pay Rs 50,000 as exemplary public-law compensation (moderated as the petitioner was not free of wrongdoing) and called for Section 173(2) CrPC reports in the seven cases registered against her. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> there is no manner of doubt the petitioner's right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed by the third respondent and other officials, who arrested her and kept her under detention without complying with the requirements of law

**Sources (2):** [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f75be4b014971113fbcf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1065173/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Hyderabad Woman v. \[name withheld\] and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-08-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1996(4) ALD 150', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f75be4b014971113fbcf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1065173/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** AP HC (pre-bifurcation; Hyderabad now in Telangana) held Article 21 violated by Inspector-led illegal detention/beating; Rs 50,000 compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1996-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0016)

## Shamshabad Police Detective Sub-Inspector vs State of A.P. (CW-1997-0021)

**Record:** CW-1997-0021 (compiler id CWC-0926); case TELANG-002
**Title:** Shamshabad Police Detective Sub-Inspector vs State of A.P.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: D.H. Nasir, J.
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 657 of 1993 / 1998(2) ALD 333
**Judgment:** 1997-12-08 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-10-09 (1989)
**Place:** Rangareddy, Telangana; city town: Shamshabad; police station or unit: Shamshabad Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.11; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Detective Sub-Inspector, Shamshabad Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Shamshabad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court (pre-bifurcation; incident in present-day Telangana) dismissed the appeal of Detective Sub-Inspector of Shamshabad Police Station and confirmed his conviction by the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad. The Court found he demanded Rs 500 from workshop owner \[name withheld\] as a motive for not foisting a stolen-property case on him, after earlier extracting two electric motors, and was caught in an ACB trap on 09-10-1989 with tainted currency recovered from his hip pocket and a positive phenolphthalein hand wash. It held the trap, demand and recovery proved by the complainant, mediators and official witnesses despite minor discrepancies, confirming one year rigorous imprisonment plus Rs 1,000 fine on each count (concurrent), with six months simple imprisonment in default of fine per count. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> no cause survives to interfere with the decision of the trial Court convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 11 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1754715/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/721992/ka-hassan-vs-state-of-ap/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/432890/k-a-hassan-vs-state-a-p)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** Shamshabad Police Detective Sub-Inspector vs State of A.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1998(2) ALD 333', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1997-12-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '1998(2) ALD 333', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1754715/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/721992/ka-hassan-vs-state-of-ap/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/432890/k-a-hassan-vs-state-a-p', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** AP High Court dismissed appeal and confirmed conviction and sentence of Detective SI for Rs 500 bribe trap at Shamshabad.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1997-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0021)

## Moinabad Man vs SHO, Narsingi Police Station and Ors. (CW-2001-0010)

**Record:** CW-2001-0010 (compiler id CWC-0384); case TELANG-007
**Title:** Moinabad Man vs SHO, Narsingi Police Station and Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: S.B. Sinha
**Case number / citation:** 2002 (1) ALD 80
**Judgment:** 2001-11-20 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-08-01 (2001)
**Place:** Rangareddy, Telangana; city town: Moinabad; police station or unit: Moinabad Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Narsingi Police Circle; Sub-Inspector of Police, Moinabad Police Station; Head Constable (HC 469), Moinabad Police Station; Constable (PC 1754), Moinabad Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Moinabad man, age 26 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court records the following account. A Moinabad man was arrested by Moinabad and Narsingi police on suspicion of murdering his missing brother-in-law, detained unlawfully across different police stations for 42 days, and subjected to severe custodial torture including being kicked with boots and forced to drink urine to extract a confession. The torture ceased only after the supposedly deceased brother-in-law was found alive and working in a factory. On a taken-up writ petition prompted by a press report, the High Court directed an enquiry by the District Judge, which confirmed the illegal detention and brutal third-degree torture by the Inspector, Sub-Inspector, and constables. The High Court ordered the State to pay Rs 1,00,000 in compensation to the victim, with liberty to recover the sum from the guilty police officers, and directed the Superintendent of Police to initiate departmental and criminal proceedings. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A case is made out that a Moinabad man was detained for 42 days. It is also the finding of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, that the officers named hereinabove practised atrocities and ill-treatment against a Moinabad man

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1847341/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Moinabad Man vs SHO, Narsingi Police Station and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-11-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2002 (1) ALD 80', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1847341/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court awarded Rs 1 lakh compensation under Art. 226 for 42 days illegal detention and third-degree custodial torture, recoverable from guilty officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2001-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0010)

## Makthal Woman vs \[name withheld\] and Ors. (CW-2003-0001)

**Record:** CW-2003-0001 (compiler id CWC-0385); case TELANG-008
**Title:** Makthal Woman vs \[name withheld\] and Ors.
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: V.V.S. Rao
**Case number / citation:** 2003 (2) ALD 49
**Judgment:** 2003-01-29 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-05-14 (2001)
**Place:** Narayanpet, Telangana (district at time: Mahbubnagar); city town: Makthal; police station or unit: Makthal Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 226; IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Makthal Police Station; Police Constable, Makthal Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Makthal man; Makthal woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court records the following account. A Makthal man of Karni village was apprehended on 9 May 2001 by Sub-Inspector and staff of Makthal Police Station as a suspect in his first wife death and held in unrecorded, illegal lock-up for five days without being produced before a magistrate. On 14 May 2001, while under severe mental strain and fleeing police custody, he climbed a 60-foot electric transmission tower and jumped to his death. On a writ petition by his widow, the High Court held that the deceased was subjected to unconstitutional, degrading detention violating fundamental rights and D.K. Basu guidelines. The Court ordered the State to pay Rs 50,000 in compensation to the widow (recoverable from the Sub-Inspector), directed the Superintendent of Police to register a murder case under Section 302 IPC and initiate disciplinary proceedings, and initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the officer. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A Makthal man was subjected to unreasonable inhuman and degrading pre-trial and pre-remand detention which is ex facie unconstitutional.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1786570/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 44
**display title redacted:** Makthal Woman vs \[name withheld\] and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-01-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2003 (2) ALD 49', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1786570/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court awarded Rs 50,000 compensation under Art. 226 for illegal 5-day lock-up preceding detainee death, ordered s.302 FIR and departmental action.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2003-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0001)

## Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs Shamshabad Police Head Constable (CW-2006-0018)

**Record:** CW-2006-0018 (compiler id CWC-0924); case GAP2-58-003
**Title:** Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs Shamshabad Police Head Constable
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: H.K. Sema; A.R. Lakshmanan
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 1318 of 2005 / (2006) 2 SCC 373; AIR 2006 SC 1214
**Judgment:** 2006-01-31 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-03-01 (2000)
**Place:** Ranga Reddy, Telangana; city town: Shamshabad; police station or unit: Shamshabad Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Shamshabad Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Head Constable of Shamshabad Police Station was on bandobast duty at the Oracle office in Hi-Tech City, Hyderabad, during the March 2000 US Presidential visit when he was alleged to have removed a CCTV lens from the office ceiling. The Court recorded that electrician G. Sridhar saw the removal on the monitor, confronted him, and the lens was recovered, leading to a DSP-led disciplinary inquiry and dismissal in September 2000, confirmed on departmental appeal and by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had quashed the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with full back wages. The Supreme Court held the High Court exceeded Article 226 review by re-appreciating inquiry evidence like an appellate authority, allowed the State appeal, and restored the dismissal without back wages.

> We entirely agree with the inquiry officer that the charges are serious in nature, being committed by a member of Disciplinary Force, who deserved stringent punishment. To instill the confidence of the public in the Establishment, the only appropriate punishment in such cases is dismissal from service, which has been correctly awarded.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1584936/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/658563/govt-of-ap-and-others-vs-mohd-narsullah-khan/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs Shamshabad Police Head Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-01-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2006) 2 SCC 373; AIR 2006 SC 1214', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1584936/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/658563/govt-of-ap-and-others-vs-mohd-narsullah-khan/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC restored dismissal of head constable for theft on duty; site now in Telangana (Andhra Pradesh at the time).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0018)

## Tiryani Police Sub-Inspector v. Inspector General of Police, Warangal Range and Others (CW-2007-0023)

**Record:** CW-2007-0023 (compiler id CWC-1082); case GAP3-12-001
**Title:** Tiryani Police Sub-Inspector v. Inspector General of Police, Warangal Range and Others
**Court:** Andhra Pradesh High Court; judges: G.S. Singhvi; C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 8019 of 2007 / (2007) 5 ALD 314
**Judgment:** 2007-04-24 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1995-01-01 (1995)
**Place:** Komaram Bheem Asifabad, Telangana (district at time: Adilabad); city town: Tiryani; police station or unit: Tiryani Police Station, Adilabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** AP Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1991; APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 Rule 3; IPC 324; IPC 366; IPC 504; IPC 34; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Tiryani Police Station, Adilabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court records the following account. Sub-Inspector of Tiryani police station, Adilabad district, faced a departmental enquiry on the charge of misusing his position by collecting Rs 6,500 from villagers of Burudagudem to favour accused in Crime No. 2 of 1995. The Inspector General of Police, Warangal Range imposed compulsory retirement in August 2001, affirmed in departmental appeal and revision, and the AP Administrative Tribunal refused to interfere. The Division Bench found the enquiry evidence, including the middleman who collected and passed the bribe to the SI, proved the charge, drawing support from the three-day detention followed by release of the accused. It held the Tribunal committed no error in refusing to interfere with the punishment, and dismissed the writ petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In our opinion, the allegation levelled against the petitioner that he misused his official position in collecting Rs. 6,500/- from the villagers for releasing the accused persons has rightly been treated as proved because the money has, in fact, been collected by his agents and absence of direct evidence regarding collecting of money by himself is not sufficient to absolve him of the charge.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/708452/t-srinivas-appellant-hash-inspector-general-of-police-warangal-range-and-others-respondent/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/492379/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Tiryani Police Sub-Inspector v. Inspector General of Police, Warangal Range and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-04-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Andhra Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2007) 5 ALD 314', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/708452/t-srinivas-appellant-hash-inspector-general-of-police-warangal-range-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/492379/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Judgment text verified; SI's compulsory retirement for Rs 6,500 bribe-taking upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0023)

## Hyderabad Police Traffic police vs State of Andhra Pradesh (CW-2013-0018)

**Record:** CW-2013-0018 (compiler id CWC-0741); case GAP2-003
**Title:** Hyderabad Police Traffic police vs State of Andhra Pradesh
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Dipak Misra; K. S. Radhakrishnan
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6354 of 2012) / AIR 2013 SC 1677
**Judgment:** 2013-04-05 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-01-04 (1994)
**Place:** Hyderabad, Telangana; city town: Hyderabad; police station or unit: Yakutpura Traffic Police Station, Hyderabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2); IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Traffic police, Yakutpura Traffic Police Station, Hyderabad; Traffic police, Yakutpura Traffic Police Station, Hyderabad (2 in record)
**Victims:** Hyderabad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. On 4 January 1994 the two traffic policemen stopped lorry driver \[name withheld\]. A Hyderabad man at Santoshnagar crossroads, Hyderabad, on the pretext of a no-entry violation, seized his vehicle documents and demanded Rs. 100 to return them without booking a case. An ACB trap caught the co-accused accepting the marked Rs. 100 inside Yakutpura Traffic Police Station in the appellant's presence. The Special Judge convicted both, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court maintained the conviction while reducing sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the appellant intercepted the vehicle, was on duty at the spot and shared common intention under Section 34 IPC, sustaining 6 months' SI under Section 7 and 1 year's SI under Section 13 PC Act.

> The accused had demanded a bribe of Rs.100/- for not booking a case for traffic violation and, in fact, no case was registered.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88786044/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Hyderabad Police Traffic police vs State of Andhra Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 2013 SC 1677', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2013-04-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 2013 SC 1677', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88786044/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified; PC Act bribery conviction of two Hyderabad traffic policemen upheld (state now Telangana).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0018)

## Saduq Ali vs State ACB rep. by Inspector of Police (CW-2018-0015)

**Record:** CW-2018-0015 (compiler id CWC-0382); case TELANG-005
**Title:** Saduq Ali vs State ACB rep. by Inspector of Police
**Court:** Telangana High Court; judges: T. Rajani
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 799 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2018-09-27 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-03-22 (2000)
**Place:** Hyderabad, Telangana; city town: Hyderabad; police station or unit: Balanagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(i); PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(ii); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Saduq Ali (Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Hyderabad man; Hyderabad man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Telangana High Court records the following account. Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Saduq Ali of Balanagar Police Station detained a scrap dealer and his father in March 2000, threatening them with false implication in a theft case unless scrap metals and a bribe of Rs 50,000 were paid. After releasing the complainant, the officer demanded an immediate installment of Rs 20,000 and visited the scrap shop to collect the sum. On 22 March 2000, the Anti-Corruption Bureau laid a trap at the shop, catching the appellant red-handed upon receiving the bribe amount. The Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000. The High Court affirmed the conviction based on consistent testimony from subordinate constables and mediators, reducing the sentence of imprisonment to one year while leaving the fine undisturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The criminal appeal is partly allowed confirming the conviction imposed by the trial court. However, the sentence of imprisonment, imposed by the trial court, is reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63079089/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Saduq Ali vs State ACB rep. by Inspector of Police
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Telangana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Telangana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 799 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2018-09-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Telangana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Telangana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 799 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63079089/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Telangana High Court confirmed PC Act conviction of ASI Saduq Ali, reducing sentence from 2 years to 1 year RI while maintaining fine.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0015)

## Secunderabad Police Sub-Inspector of Police vs The State of A.P. thru ACB, City Range-I (CW-2018-0030)

**Record:** CW-2018-0030 (compiler id CWC-0927); case TELANG-003
**Title:** Secunderabad Police Sub-Inspector of Police vs The State of A.P. thru ACB, City Range-I
**Court:** Telangana High Court; judges: T. Rajani, J.
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. No. 1507 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2018-12-12 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-02-25 (2004)
**Place:** Hyderabad, Telangana; city town: Secunderabad; police station or unit: Karkhana Police Station, Secunderabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Karkhana Police Station, Secunderabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Secunderabad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Telangana High Court dismissed the appeal of Sub-Inspector of Karkhana Police Station, Secunderabad and confirmed his conviction by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad dated 15.10.2009 in C.C. No. 18 of 2005. The Court found he demanded Rs 1,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] for issuing a police certificate for lost LLB and transfer certificates, and was caught in an ACB trap on 25-02-2004 (Cr. No. 6/RCT-CR1/2004) with tainted currency recovered from him. Holding guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt, it confirmed one year rigorous imprisonment plus Rs 1,000 fine (one month in default) under each of Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> this court holds that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, the judgment of the court below needs no interference.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188131163/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Secunderabad Police Sub-Inspector of Police vs The State of A.P. thru ACB, City Range-I
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Telangana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Telangana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 1507 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2018-12-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Telangana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Telangana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A. No. 1507 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188131163/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Telangana High Court dismissed appeal and confirmed conviction and sentence of SI for Rs 1,000 bribe trap at Karkhana PS.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0030)

## Hyderabad Man & Anr. v. \[name withheld\] & Ors. (CW-2022-0008)

**Record:** CW-2022-0008 (compiler id CWC-0657); case SWOTHERM-021
**Title:** Hyderabad Man & Anr. v. \[name withheld\] & Ors.
**Court:** Telangana High Court; judges: G. Radha Rani
**Case number / citation:** Contempt Case No. 826 of 2021 / 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 47
**Judgment:** 2022-06-06 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated (2020)
**Place:** Hyderabad, Telangana; city town: Hyderabad; police station or unit: Jubilee Hills Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 498-A; IPC 506
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad City Police; Assistant Commissioner of Police; Circle Inspector, Jubilee Hills Police Station; Sub-Inspector, Jubilee Hills Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Hyderabad man, age 49; Hyderabad woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.077 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Telangana High Court records the following account. In Crime 488/2020 (Jubilee Hills PS, matrimonial/dowry FIR under Sections 498-A/506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act), West Zone police issued a Look Out Circular and procured non-bailable warrants showing the accused absconding without ever serving Section 41-A CrPC notices, ignoring their emails and WhatsApp messages and concealing their representation from the Magistrate. The High Court held DCP and three subordinate officers (respondent Nos. 2 to 4 - the LOC forwarding authority, the station officer-in-charge and the investigating officer) guilty of wilful, deliberate disobedience of Arnesh Kumar. Each was sentenced to four weeks' imprisonment plus Rs 2,000 fine (suspended six weeks), with subsistence allowance and disciplinary action directed against all four. The respondents contested the case through counsel and counter-affidavits. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As issuance of LOC or NBWs against the petitioners without issuing any notice to them, without giving them an opportunity to prove their bonafides and without enquiring them, was in violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I hold that the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, they are liable to be punished for contempt of court.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/telangana-hc-contempt-ips-421255.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/arrest-guidelines-telangana-high-court-sentences-ips-officer-contempt-of-court-201164); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/violation-of-arnesh-kumar-guidelines-telangana-high-court-holds-four-police-officials-guilty-contempt-of-court)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Hyderabad Man & Anr. v. \[name withheld\] & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-06-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Telangana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Telangana High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 47', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/telangana-hc-contempt-ips-421255.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/arrest-guidelines-telangana-high-court-sentences-ips-officer-contempt-of-court-201164', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/violation-of-arnesh-kumar-guidelines-telangana-high-court-holds-four-police-officials-guilty-contempt-of-court', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC contempt judgment verified from primary PDF; all four officers incl. IPS DCP convicted, 4 weeks + fine.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2022-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0008)

## Gangireddy Rami Reddy vs The State of AP rep. by its Spl. PP Hyd., for ACB (CW-2022-0019)

**Record:** CW-2022-0019 (compiler id CWC-0388); case TELANG-011
**Title:** Gangireddy Rami Reddy vs The State of AP rep. by its Spl. PP Hyd., for ACB
**Court:** Telangana High Court; judges: K. Surender
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1740 of 2007
**Judgment:** 2022-09-20 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-07-29 (2000)
**Place:** Warangal, Telangana; city town: Warangal; police station or unit: Mattewada Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Gangireddy Rami Reddy (Traffic Inspector) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Warangal man; Warangal man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Telangana High Court dismissed the appeal of Traffic Inspector Gangireddy Rami Reddy, then in charge of Mattewada police station, confirming one year rigorous imprisonment on each PC Act count. The Court found he had detained a lorry and its driver in the station for nine days after a road accident without producing either before a magistrate, and demanded Rs 8,000 from the lorry owner for their release. The ACB Warangal trap of 29 July 2000 succeeded when he took the tainted notes into his table drawer and his right-hand wash tested positive. It held the unexplained detention corroborated the demand, rejected the planted-money defence, and sustained the Special Court judgment. An SLP against the judgment was filed in the Supreme Court in January 2023. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The presence of the lorry and driver in the police station indicates that the appellant, who was in charge of the police station had detained the lorry and P.W.8 for a period of eight days without following due procedure under Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said circumstances, the claim of P.W.1 that the appellant demanded amount is believable. It cannot be said that a false complaint was made against the appellant.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187179343/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112676980/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Gangireddy Rami Reddy vs The State of AP rep. by its Spl. PP Hyd., for ACB
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Telangana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Telangana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1740 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2022-09-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Telangana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Telangana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1740 of 2007', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2023-01-18', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 18 January 2023, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: Gangireddy Rami Reddy); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112676980/', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2023-01-18', 'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112676980/', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187179343/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112676980/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** 9-day illegal detention corroborated bribe demand; 1y RI on both PC Act counts confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0019)

## Rachakonda Police Reserve Sub-Inspector v. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda & Ors. (CW-2023-0037)

**Record:** CW-2023-0037 (compiler id CWC-0928); case GAP2-8-004
**Title:** Rachakonda Police Reserve Sub-Inspector v. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda & Ors.
**Court:** Telangana High Court; judges: N.V. Shravan Kumar
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 24577 of 2022
**Judgment:** 2023-03-03 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2019-05-24 (2019)
**Place:** Medchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana; city town: Malkajgiri; police station or unit: Rachakonda Police Commissionerate; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC s.354-D; Telangana Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 r.3; CCA Rules r.9(vi)-(x), r.21(5); Constitution Art.226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Reserve Sub-Inspector, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate (1 in record)
**Victims:** Malkajgiri woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The Telangana High Court dismissed the writ petition of Reserve Sub-Inspector challenging the major penalty imposed after a woman complainant alleged he tried to outrage her modesty on the pretext of coaching her for police-constable recruitment (Crime No. 357 of 2019, Malkajgiri). The Court held the departmental charge proved on preponderance of probabilities, that his explanation was not genuine, that the criminal acquittal on hostile witnesses had no bearing on the departmental finding, and that he had violated Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules. It sustained the postponement of increments for three years with effect on future increments and pension, with the suspension period treated as not on duty. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The petitioner did not maintain absolute integrity towards his job and he got involved in a criminal case in Cr.No.357 of 2019 under Section 354-D IPC of Malkajgiri PS., which is derogatory to the image of Police department in the eyes of general public.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78879004/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 32
**display title redacted:** Rachakonda Police Reserve Sub-Inspector v. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-03-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Telangana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Telangana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Petition No. 24577 of 2022', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78879004/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Telangana HC dismissed RSI's writ; major penalty (3-year increment stoppage) for sexual misconduct toward woman trainee upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0037)

## Bachupally Resident & Ors. v. State of Telangana (CW-2023-0044)

**Record:** CW-2023-0044 (compiler id CWC-0929); case GAP2-8-001
**Title:** Bachupally Resident & Ors. v. State of Telangana
**Court:** Telangana High Court; judges: M. Laxman
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Petition No. 6096 of 2019
**Judgment:** 2023-06-30 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-01-24 (2009)
**Place:** Medchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana (district at time: Ranga Reddy); city town: Bachupally; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC s.447; IPC s.427; CrPC s.482
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bachupally resident; Bachupally resident; Bachupally resident; Bachupally resident (4 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Telangana High Court allowed a Section 482 petition and quashed the proceedings against four accused in a Bachupally land-trespass case (C.C. No. 33 of 2019). The Court found the charge sheet was filed without any basis: the petitioners were named neither in the FIR nor the private complaint nor by any witness, while the person actually named by the complainant was deleted without reasons. Holding this a clear case of abuse of process causing needless prosecution and mental agony through improper investigation, the Court awarded Rs 25,000 exemplary costs payable by the State with liberty to recover the sum from the investigating officer who filed the charge sheet. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This is a clear case of abuse of process. On account of improper investigation, the petitioners were unnecessarily subjected to criminal prosecution and undergone mental agony.

**Sources (2):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/koduluri-ramu-ors-vs-state-of-telangana-1521904.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/high-court/telangana-high-court/telangana-high-court-cost-wrong-implication-trespass-case-232835)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 4
**display title redacted:** Bachupally Resident & Ors. v. State of Telangana
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-06-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Telangana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Telangana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Petition No. 6096 of 2019', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/koduluri-ramu-ors-vs-state-of-telangana-1521904.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/high-court/telangana-high-court/telangana-high-court-cost-wrong-implication-trespass-case-232835', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Telangana HC quashed prosecution as abuse of process from improper investigation; Rs 25,000 exemplary costs, recoverable from IO.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0044](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0044)

## Syed Allauddin Baber vs The State of A.P. rep. by its Spl. P.P. Hyd., for ACB (CW-2024-0012)

**Record:** CW-2024-0012 (compiler id CWC-0387); case TELANG-010
**Title:** Syed Allauddin Baber vs The State of A.P. rep. by its Spl. P.P. Hyd., for ACB
**Court:** Telangana High Court; judges: K. Surender
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2024-07-05 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-01-08 (2004)
**Place:** Hyderabad, Telangana; city town: Hyderabad; police station or unit: Police outpost, Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station (MGBS); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Syed Allauddin Baber (Head Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Hyderabad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Telangana High Court upheld the conviction of Head Constable Syed Allauddin Baber of the MGBS police outpost for demanding and accepting a Rs 500 bribe from an ex-Air Force man turned bank clerk. The Court found the officer had stopped the complainant at the bus station on 23 December 2003 on a false solicitation pretext, seized his driving licence and CAT card, and insisted on Rs 500 for their return. The ACB trapped him on 8 January 2004 when he took the tainted notes and his right-hand wash tested positive. It held demand and acceptance proved by the complainant, the mediator and the seized documents found in his possession, dismissed the appeal, and directed him to surrender to serve the remaining sentence with Section 428 set-off.

> The version of P.W.1, P.W.2 and Exs.P1 and P2, being found in possession of the appellant, gives credibility to the case of the prosecution that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe from P.W.1. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Special Court.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148043179/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Syed Allauddin Baber vs The State of A.P. rep. by its Spl. P.P. Hyd., for ACB
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Telangana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Telangana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-07-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Telangana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Telangana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-09-30', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 30 September 2024, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: Syed Allauddin Baber); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/cl/2025-11-20/M_R_1.pdf', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-11-20', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 20 November 2025, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: Syed Allauddin Baber); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/cl/2025-11-20/M_R_1.pdf', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2024-09-30', 'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/cl/2025-11-20/M_R_1.pdf', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}; {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2025-11-20', 'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/cl/2025-11-20/M_R_1.pdf', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148043179/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** PC Act trap conviction of head constable upheld; appeal dismissed (operative para per agent quotes).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0012)

## Sri Depa Venkat Reddy @ Venkanna vs The State of A.P. (CW-2025-0001)

**Record:** CW-2025-0001 (compiler id CWC-0381); case TELANG-004
**Title:** Sri Depa Venkat Reddy @ Venkanna vs The State of A.P.
**Court:** Telangana High Court; judges: K. Surender
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1369 of 2008
**Judgment:** 2025-03-19 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-06-26 (2003)
**Place:** Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, Telangana (district at time: Nalgonda); city town: Choutuppal; police station or unit: Choutuppal Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Depa Venkat Reddy @ Venkanna (Police Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Choutuppal man; Choutuppal man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Telangana High Court records the following account. Police Constable of Choutuppal Police Station intercepted a sand-laden lorry on 23 June 2003, seized its registration documents, and demanded a bribe of Rs 2,000 to return them. On 26 June 2003, during a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the appellant received the tainted bribe at his residence and threw the currency into an adjacent drain upon seeing the trap party. The Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court found the demand, acceptance, and recovery firmly established, affirming the conviction while reducing the sentence of imprisonment to one year on each count to run concurrently. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The grounds raised by the learned counsel cannot be accepted to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. However, the sentence of imprisonment of two years under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act is reduced to one year under both counts.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162843668/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Sri Depa Venkat Reddy @ Venkanna vs The State of A.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Telangana High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Telangana High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1369 of 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-03-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Telangana High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Telangana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 1369 of 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-07-21', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 21 July 2025, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: Depa Venkat Reddy @ Venkanna); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/cl/2025-07-21/M_C_1.pdf', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2025-07-21', 'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/cl/2025-07-21/M_C_1.pdf', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162843668/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Telangana High Court confirmed PC Act conviction of Police Constable, reducing sentence from 2 years to 1 year RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0001)

## Telangana Woman & Anr. vs State of Telangana & Anr. (CW-2025-0077)

**Record:** CW-2025-0077 (compiler id CWC-1382); case cop-tg-hc-3
**Title:** Telangana Woman & Anr. vs State of Telangana & Anr.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10748 of 2023 (FIR No. 771 of 2020) / 2025 INSC 870
**Judgment:** 2025-07-18 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2021-01-13 (2021)
**Place:** Telangana; police station or unit: Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating officers, Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad (Telangana Police) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Telangana woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Supreme Court examined the arrest and eight-day custody of a 70-year-old accused in a civil sale-deed dispute under FIR No. 771 of 2020. The Supreme Court held that the complainant was misusing the process of police investigation so as to entangle the accused. The Supreme Court held that the arrest in a civil dispute clearly showed the complainant company's clout on the police agency. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings as a gross abuse of the process of law.

> clearly shows the clout of the company of which the complainant is an agent, on the police agency

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189554683/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** as summarized from judgment text
**display title redacted:** Telangana Woman & Anr. vs State of Telangana & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-07-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2025 INSC 870', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189554683/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2025-0077](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0077)

## Telangana Man vs The State of Telangana (CW-2025-0076)

**Record:** CW-2025-0076 (compiler id CWC-1381); case cop-tg-hc-2
**Title:** Telangana Man vs The State of Telangana
**Court:** High Court for the State of Telangana; judges: N. Tukaramji
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Petition Nos. 4905, 4903 and 8416 of 2025
**Judgment:** 2025-09-10 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Telangana; police station or unit: Telangana Police (FIR Nos. 8, 13 and 146 of 2025); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Section 176(1) of the BNSS
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating officers, Telangana Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Telangana man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court examined three FIRs registered over social media posts mocking the ruling party on complaints by third parties. The High Court held that the posts were plainly political criticism and satire and disclosed no cognizable offence. The High Court held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process. The High Court quashed all three FIRs and directed detailed guidelines for police to follow before registering FIRs over speech, with a copy to the DGP.

> continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25907023/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/police-action-against-social-media-posts-supreme-court-upholds-telangana-hc-safeguards)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 28
**display title redacted:** Telangana Man vs The State of Telangana
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-09-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court for the State of Telangana', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court for the State of Telangana recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'Criminal Petition Nos. 4905, 4903 and 8416 of 2025', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25907023/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/police-action-against-social-media-posts-supreme-court-upholds-telangana-hc-safeguards', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2025-0076](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0076)

## M/s \[name withheld\] vs \[name withheld\] (CW-2026-0094)

**Record:** CW-2026-0094 (compiler id CWC-1380); case cop-tg-hc-1
**Title:** M/s \[name withheld\] vs \[name withheld\]
**Court:** High Court for the State of Telangana; judges: Anil Kumar Jukanti
**Case number / citation:** Contempt Case Nos. 3482 and 3483 of 2026
**Judgment:** 2026-07-27 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Medchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana; police station or unit: HYDRAA with Hyderabad police support; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Commissioner (IPS officer), Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (HYDRAA) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court dealt with contempt petitions alleging HYDRAA staff entered the petitioner's Lothukunta land with police presence and machinery despite restraining orders and an undertaking. The High Court held that detaining the petitioner's representative and registering an FIR were not denied and that the conduct met the test for defiance. The High Court rejected the apology as shorn of penitence. The High Court held the officer guilty of civil contempt and directed that he be relieved as Commissioner of HYDRAA.

> willful, deliberate, intentional disobedience to the restraining orders of this Court and breach of an undertaking given

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27710886/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/here-is-why-telangana-high-court-ordered-removal-of-ips-officer-as-hydraa-commissioner)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 57
**display title redacted:** M/s \[name withheld\] vs \[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-07-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court for the State of Telangana', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court for the State of Telangana recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'Contempt Case Nos. 3482 and 3483 of 2026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27710886/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/here-is-why-telangana-high-court-ordered-removal-of-ips-officer-as-hydraa-commissioner', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0094](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0094)

## Telangana Resident vs The State of Telangana (CW-2026-0093)

**Record:** CW-2026-0093 (compiler id CWC-1379); case cop-tg-hc-0
**Title:** Telangana Resident vs The State of Telangana
**Court:** High Court for the State of Telangana; judges: Tangirala Madhavi Devi
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 26326 of 2026
**Judgment:** 2026-08-07 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Telangana; police station or unit: Falaknuma Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding (adverse_finding)
**Sections:** Section 94 of BNSS
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating officer, Falaknuma Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Telangana resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The High Court examined a Section 94 BNSS notice sent to X seeking the petitioner's user details in Crime No. 404 of 2026. The High Court held that the FIR contained no reference to the petitioner in any way. The High Court held that there was no basis for issuing the notice against the petitioner. The High Court set aside the notice so far as it treated the petitioner as involved and restrained coercive steps without due process.

> there is no basis for the issuance of the notice under Section 94 of BNSS to X (Twitter).

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75788034/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/user-not-named-in-fir-cited-by-police-telangana-hc-quashes-police-notice-seeking-x-account-details)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 4
**display title redacted:** Telangana Resident vs The State of Telangana
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court for the State of Telangana', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court for the State of Telangana recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'W.P. No. 26326 of 2026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75788034/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/user-not-named-in-fir-cited-by-police-telangana-hc-quashes-police-notice-seeking-x-account-details', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding.

[Open CW-2026-0093](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0093)

## Ranga Reddy Man vs Investigating Officer, Saroor Nagar Police Station & Anr (CW-2026-0096)

**Record:** CW-2026-0096 (compiler id CWC-1386)
**Title:** Ranga Reddy Man vs Investigating Officer, Saroor Nagar Police Station & Anr
**Court:** High Court for the State of Telangana; judges: K. Sujana
**Case number / citation:** Contempt Case No. 2485 of 2026
**Judgment:** 2026-09-18 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-04-28 (2026)
**Place:** Ranga Reddy, Telangana; police station or unit: Saroor Nagar Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating Officer (reported as an Assistant Commissioner of Police), Saroor Nagar Police Station, Telangana Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ranga Reddy man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The High Court recorded that it had granted a man interim protection from arrest on 21.04.2026, extended on 23.04.2026 and 27.04.2026, in an FIR registered at Saroor Nagar Police Station, and that he was nevertheless arrested on 28.04.2026 and produced before the Magistrate, who refused remand. The High Court rejected the investigating officer's apology and his explanation that he did not know of the extension, holding that he knew of the first protection order and should have verified its status, including from the court's website. The High Court held the investigating officer guilty of wilful disobedience and sentenced him to one month's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000; the contempt case against a sub-inspector was dismissed because he had no role in the arrest. At the Public Prosecutor's request the sentence was suspended till 19.10.2026 to allow an appeal.

> This Court holds that respondent No.1 has willfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court and is, therefore, liable to be punished for contempt.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/24/160-katta-vamsi-702308.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/telangana-high-court/telangana-high-court-police-officer-ignored-arrest-protection-order-551732)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Court finding', 'position_explainer': 'A court has made a finding on this allegation.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** Ranga Reddy Man vs Investigating Officer, Saroor Nagar Police Station & Anr
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Past-week sweep: record written from the order text; quote checked verbatim against the order.'}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Official source added: Telangana High Court order in C.C. No. 2485 of 2026 dated 18.09.2026 (copy hosted by LiveLaw); quote checked verbatim, sentence of one month and Rs 2,000 fine confirmed, suspended till 19.10.2026 for appeal.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court for the State of Telangana', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "The High Court held the investigating officer guilty of contempt and sentenced him to one month's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, suspended till 19.10.2026.", 'disposition': 'conviction by HC (contempt)', 'source': 'Contempt Case No. 2485 of 2026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-25
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/telangana-high-court/telangana-high-court-police-officer-ignored-arrest-protection-order-551732', 'link_checked': '2026-09-25'}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Checked against the order dated 18.09.2026 (LiveLaw PDF of Contempt Case No. 2485 of 2026). The order text calls the officer the Investigating Officer; the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police comes from news reports.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2026-0096](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0096)

## Agartala Man vs State of Tripura (CW-1992-0009)

**Record:** CW-1992-0009 (compiler id CWC-0930); case GAP2-41-002
**Title:** Agartala Man vs State of Tripura
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; bench: Agartala; judges: S.K. Homchaudhuri; N.G. Das
**Case number / citation:** F.A. No. 5 of 1983 (from Money Suit No. 6 of 1978) / 1993 (2) GLR 214; 1994 ACJ 858
**Judgment:** 1992-01-10 (1992, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1976-04-26 (1976)
**Place:** West Tripura, Tripura; city town: Agartala; police station or unit: Kotwali Police Station, Agartala; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 379; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 300
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Kotwali Police Station, Agartala
**Victims:** Agartala man, age 18 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court allowed the first appeal of Ranubala Sutradhar and set aside the trial court's dismissal of her damages suit. The court recorded that her 18-year-old son \[name withheld\], arrested for theft on the night of 25.04.1976, was found dead in the Kotwali (Agartala) lock-up on the morning of 26.04.1976. It held the death in custody was attributable to the gross negligence of the Kotwali police officials and that Kasturilal's sovereign-immunity defence could not defeat a damages claim for an Article 21 violation. The suit was decreed for Rs 1 lakh with costs throughout, payable within two months, with 15% p.a. interest on default. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the instant case the claim for damages has arisen due to deprivation of life of the son of the plaintiff in the police custody due to gross negligence of the State machinery and the deceased has been deprived of his life in flagrant violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134538/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/428376/ranubala-sutradhar-appellant-hash-state-of-tripura-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Agartala Man vs State of Tripura
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1992-01-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1993 (2) GLR 214; 1994 ACJ 858', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134538/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/428376/ranubala-sutradhar-appellant-hash-state-of-tripura-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Mirror text verified: appeal allowed, suit decreed Rs 1L; Division Bench F.A. No. 5/1983 (agent said Single Bench).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1992-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1992-0009)

## Amarpur To Udaipur Man vs State of Tripura (CW-1997-0012)

**Record:** CW-1997-0012 (compiler id CWC-0931); case GAP2-41-003
**Title:** Amarpur To Udaipur Man vs State of Tripura
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; judges: A.K. Patnaik; V.K. Khanna
**Case number / citation:** Civil Rule No. 3 (HC) of 1993 / (1997) 1 GLJ 382; (1997) 1 GLT 555
**Judgment:** 1997-02-13 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-01-19 (1993)
**Place:** Gomati, Tripura (district at time: South Tripura); city town: Amarpur to Udaipur; police station or unit: Police escort team, South Tripura; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** National Security Act 1980; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Tripura Police (escort team); Constable, Tripura Police (escort team); Constable, Tripura Police (escort team); Constable, Tripura Police (escort team); Constable, Tripura Police (escort team) (5 in record)
**Victims:** Amarpur to Udaipur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court Division Bench disposed of a writ petition registered on an advocate's fax complaint about NSA detenu \[name withheld\], an Amarpur advocate. The court accepted the judicial-enquiry finding that an Amarpur to Udaipur man was mercilessly beaten by his police escort led by Inspector en route from Amarpur to Udaipur on 19.01.1993, sustaining grievous injuries including a fractured right hand. It held the assault in police custody violated Article 21 and that the State could not plead sovereign immunity. The State was ordered to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation (over treatment costs already reimbursed) and to hold a further enquiry within three months into the roles of the SP, DM and BDO, with disciplinary proceedings and salary-recovery on an adverse finding. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> There is no law which authorised the merciless assault on an Amarpur to Udaipur man while he was in police custody and such assault was therefore in clear violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution for which Sri Mazumdar was entitled to compensation from the State and the State cannot take the defence of soveriegn immunity against such claim of compensation.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/425661/arun-chandra-bhawmik-appellant-hash-state-of-tripura-respondent/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b494b4607dba348f00e76a)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Amarpur To Udaipur Man vs State of Tripura
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-02-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1997) 1 GLJ 382; (1997) 1 GLT 555', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/425661/arun-chandra-bhawmik-appellant-hash-state-of-tripura-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b494b4607dba348f00e76a', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Mirror text verified: Rs 1L compensation for custodial assault; further enquiry within 3 months.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0012)

## State of Tripura and Ors. vs Smt. Narayani S. (CW-2005-0009)

**Record:** CW-2005-0009 (compiler id CWC-0267); case NORTHE-008
**Title:** State of Tripura and Ors. vs Smt. Narayani S.
**Court:** Gauhati High Court; bench: Agartala; judges: T. Vaiphei; B.P. Katakey
**Case number / citation:** 2005 Cri LJ 4239
**Judgment:** 2005-09-01 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-07-28 (1991)
**Place:** Dhalai, Tripura; city town: Ambassa; police station or unit: Ambassa Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (2 in record)
**Victims:** Ambassa boy, age 16 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Gauhati High Court (Agartala Division Bench) dismissed the State's appeal and upheld Rs 2.5 lakh compensation for the custodial death of 16-year-old a 16-year-old boy, affirming single judge W.A. Shishak's 23-06-1999 order in Civil Rule 482/1998. The court held he was subjected to brutal police torture in Ambassa custody after arrest on 28-07-1991 in a theft case (PS Case 9(7)/91), vindicated by ante-mortem injuries in the post-mortem, jail sick-book entries and his complaint to the Magistrate, dying on 10-08-1991 with no timely medical aid. Holding the State liable for the constitutional tort under Article 21, it directed payment of the Rs 2 lakh balance within two months (Rs 50,000 already paid), recoverable from erring officials, with Rs 5,000 costs for the meritless appeal.

> The torture in the police custody, as held above, is also violative of the fundamental right of the detenue under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1053996/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1500820/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** State of Tripura and Ors. vs Smt. Narayani S.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para', 'officers'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-09-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Gauhati High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Gauhati High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 250,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2005 Cri LJ 4239', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1053996/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1500820/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Gauhati HC (Agartala DB) upheld Rs 2.5L for custodial death of minor corrected to custodial_death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 16, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a 16-year-old boy'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2005-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0009)

## CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2017-0021)

**Record:** CW-2017-0021 (compiler id CWC-1002); case GAP3-105-003
**Title:** CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Prabhat Kumar Jha
**Case number / citation:** C.W.J.C. No. 18705 of 2008
**Judgment:** 2017-04-26 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-11-01 (1999)
**Place:** West Tripura, Tripura; city town: Agartala; police station or unit: B/11 Battalion, CRPF, Agartala; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** CRPF Act 1949 s.11(1); CRPF Rules 1955 r.27(a)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, B/11 Battalion, CRPF (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Patna High Court (Prabhat Kumar Jha J.) on 26 April 2017 dismissed the writ petition of CRPF Constable and upheld his dismissal from service. The court recorded that while posted at Agartala he reported intoxicated for medical examination on 1 November 1999, disobeyed orderly duty, absented from barracks without permission and abused Deputy Commandant M.K. Sinha. The court held dismissal under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act read with Rule 27 was competent without a Sections 9/10 prosecution, following the Supreme Court in Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, and that the enquiry suffered no procedural illegality. Later proceedings: on 25 February 2023, the Patna High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand. The dismissal, already affirmed in appeal, was consequently sustained.

> Therefore, I find that on account of non-appointment of presenting officer, although there is no rule for appointing presenting officer, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner and the dismissal of the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158309745/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** CRPF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**final outcome url:** https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157215898/
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-04-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'C.W.J.C. No. 18705 of 2008', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2023-02-25', 'action_type': 'Order set aside', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'Later proceedings: on 25 February 2023, the Patna High Court set aside the order recorded in this judgment (concerning \[name withheld\]); the outcome recorded here therefore does not stand.', 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Conviction not standing', 'source': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157215898/', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Patna High Court', 'date': '2023-02-25', 'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157215898/', 'outcome': 'conviction_set_aside'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158309745/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** overturned
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld dismissal of CRPF constable for intoxication and disobedience at Agartala.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0021)

## Sonamura Man and Others vs State of Tripura and Others (CW-2022-0012)

**Record:** CW-2022-0012 (compiler id CWC-0852); case NORTHE-005; aliases: CWC-0933
**Title:** Sonamura Man and Others vs State of Tripura and Others
**Court:** Tripura High Court; judges: Indrajit Mahanty; S.G. Chattopadhyay
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 797 of 2021 / 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 14
**Judgment:** 2022-06-22 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2021-09-14 (2021)
**Place:** Sepahijala, Tripura; city town: Sonamura (Balardhepa); police station or unit: Sonamura Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Sonamura Police Station (arresting party and lock-up staff) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Sonamura man, age 27 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Tripura High Court (Division Bench) held that 27-year-old a Sonamura man @ a Sonamura man died of custodial torture in the Sonamura police lock-up in the night between 14-09-2021 and 15-09-2021. Relying on the magisterial enquiry and post-mortem showing fresh ante-mortem injuries, the court rejected the State's 'fell while fleeing' version as suspicious and held custodial violence could not be brushed aside. It directed the State to deposit Rs 10 lakh with the Registry within four weeks, in equal shares for the widow, three minor children and mother (children's shares in term deposits). It clarified the observations would not bear on any prosecution in connection with the incident. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In these highly suspicious facts and circumstances of the case custodial violence on the deceased, as alleged, cannot be brushed aside.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw-bennett.refread.com](https://livelaw-bennett.refread.com/pdf_upload/rasheda-khatun-and-others-v-state-of-tripura-and-others-tripura-hc-423139.pdf); [maktoobmedia.com](https://maktoobmedia.com/india/custodial-death-tripura-hc-orders-%e2%82%b910-lakh-compensation-for-muslim-youths-family/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/rasheda-khatun-and-others-v-state-of-tripura-and-others-tripura-hc-423139.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/custodial-death-tripura-high-court-orders-compensation-for-family-members-27year-old-victim-202216)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Sonamura Man and Others vs State of Tripura and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Audit fix: duplicate record CW-2022-0030 (same court, case number and judgment date) merged into this record; its sources are kept here and its URL redirects here.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-06-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Tripura High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Tripura High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 14', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-25
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://livelaw-bennett.refread.com/pdf_upload/rasheda-khatun-and-others-v-state-of-tripura-and-others-tripura-hc-423139.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://maktoobmedia.com/india/custodial-death-tripura-hc-orders-%e2%82%b910-lakh-compensation-for-muslim-youths-family/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Tripura HC (DB) held custodial torture killed a Sonamura man in Sonamura lockup; Rs 10L in equal shares.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0012)

## Agartala Woman vs The State of Tripura and Others (CW-2022-0020)

**Record:** CW-2022-0020 (compiler id CWC-0274); case SWILLEGA-063; aliases: CWC-0572
**Title:** Agartala Woman vs The State of Tripura and Others
**Court:** Tripura High Court; judges: Indrajit Mahanty; S.G. Chattopadhyay
**Case number / citation:** WP(C) (PIL) No. 25 of 2021 / 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 635
**Judgment:** 2022-09-21 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2021-10-26 (2021)
**Place:** West Tripura, Tripura; city town: Agartala; police station or unit: GB TOP, Agartala; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Agartala woman, age 28 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Tripura High Court records the following account. A Division Bench took suo motu PIL on a newspaper report that a 28-year-old woman called for interrogation in an unverified theft complaint was beaten in the GB TOP lockup on 26 October 2021 without any arrest or case. Rejecting the State's denial, the court held on medical evidence of abrasions on both buttocks and hospital admission that she was detained for a considerable period for interrogation, deprived of D.K. Basu safeguards, and tortured and maltreated in police custody. It directed the State to pay Rs 2.5 lakh compensation through the Court Registry within one month and directed the DGP to ensure D.K. Basu compliance. The court clarified its observations would not affect any prosecution. No individual officer is named in the judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> But, apparently, she was deprived of those safeguards and she was tortured and maltreated in police custody.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/court-on-its-own-motion-v-the-state-of-tripura-and-others-wpc-pil-no25-of-2021-436532.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/tripura-high-court-grants-25lakh-compensation-28yrold-woman-tortured-maltreated-police-custody-210213); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32209059/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 20
**display title redacted:** Agartala Woman vs The State of Tripura and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-09-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Tripura High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Tripura High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 250,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2022 SCC OnLine Tri 635', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/court-on-its-own-motion-v-the-state-of-tripura-and-others-wpc-pil-no25-of-2021-436532.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/tripura-high-court-grants-25lakh-compensation-28yrold-woman-tortured-maltreated-police-custody-210213', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32209059/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs 2.5 lakh for custodial torture of woman; D.K. Basu compliance directed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0020)

## Konaban Police Rifleman vs State of Tripura (CW-2025-0010)

**Record:** CW-2025-0010 (compiler id CWC-0272); case NORTHE-013
**Title:** Konaban Police Rifleman vs State of Tripura
**Court:** Tripura High Court; judges: T. Amarnath Goud; Biswajit Palit
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A.(J) No. 22 of 2024
**Judgment:** 2025-06-24 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2021-12-04 (2021)
**Place:** Sepahijala, Tripura; city town: Konaban; police station or unit: 5th Bn Tripura State Rifles (IR-I), Konaban camp; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Rifleman, 5th Bn Tripura State Rifles (1 in record)
**Victims:** Konaban man; Konaban man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Tripura High Court dismissed the appeal of TSR Rifleman and affirmed his conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with a Rs 50,000 fine for shooting dead two colleagues at Konaban camp on 4 December 2021. The Court held the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he deliberately opened fire with his service weapon after being denied leave, rejecting the defence theory of an accidental discharge during a scuffle as an afterthought. It held that mere denial of leave could not constitute grave or sudden provocation for shooting superior officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Accordingly, this Court holds that the accused-appellant is guilty of the offence as charged. Accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [rawlaw.in](https://rawlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Sri-Sukanta-Das.pdf); [tripurachronicle.in](https://tripurachronicle.in/local-news/tsr-constable-gets-life-term-for-killing-two-colleagues-in-2021/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 43
**display title redacted:** Konaban Police Rifleman vs State of Tripura
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Tripura High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Tripura High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Crl.A.(J) No. 22 of 2024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-06-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Tripura High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Tripura High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Crl.A.(J) No. 22 of 2024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://rawlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Sri-Sukanta-Das.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://tripurachronicle.in/local-news/tsr-constable-gets-life-term-for-killing-two-colleagues-in-2021/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Tripura HC DB dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Section 302 life sentence for the TSR rifleman; matches conviction_upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0010)

## Noida Woman vs Union of India and 4 Others (CW-2026-0057)

**Record:** CW-2026-0057 (compiler id CWC-0944); case GAP2-4-003; aliases: CWC-1451
**Title:** Noida Woman vs Union of India and 4 Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Atul Sreedharan; Achal Sachdev
**Case number / citation:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 960 of 2026 / 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 645
**Judgment:** Date not stated (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-04-11 (2026)
**Place:** Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Noida; police station or unit: U.P. Police, Gautam Buddha Nagar Commissionerate (Sector-39 / Sector-142 / Sector-14A Police Stations, Noida); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** BNS ss.191(1), 191(2), 115(2), 121(1), 125(a), 351(3), 352; Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1932 s.7; NSA 1980 (detention order quashed); BNSS s.130; Constitution Art.21
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, Police Station, Gautam Buddha Nagar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Noida woman, age 24 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Replace closing boilerplate with the recorded State case (paras 15-21, 32) and add the limit: NSA detention quashed but petitioner remains in judicial custody as undertrial in other cases pending bail (paras 33-34).

> this Court considers it sufficient to grant ₹5 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner. This Court also directs that the said amount must be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar, who has passed this order of detention without application of mind and from all such other officers who may have been responsible, right down to the SHO of the Police Station, who had prepared the initial report warranting the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the NSA.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/07/akriti-chaudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-4-others-2026-livelaw-ab-645-allahabad-high-court-698671.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-nsa-detention-akriti-chaudhary-orwellian-dystopia-548946); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/noida-workers-protest-allahabad-high-court-quashes-nsa-detention-of-du-grad-akriti-chaudhary)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 33
**display title redacted:** Noida Woman vs Union of India and 4 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (AB) 645', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-09-13', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 13 September 2026, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: ); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://www.earlytimes.in/newsdet.aspx?q=406136', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2026-09-13', 'url': 'https://www.earlytimes.in/newsdet.aspx?q=406136', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/07/akriti-chaudhary-vs-union-of-india-and-4-others-2026-livelaw-ab-645-allahabad-high-court-698671.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-nsa-detention-akriti-chaudhary-orwellian-dystopia-548946', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/noida-workers-protest-allahabad-high-court-quashes-nsa-detention-of-du-grad-akriti-chaudhary', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC quashed NSA detention as violative of Art. 21; Rs.5 lakh compensation recoverable from DM down to SHO.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0057](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0057)

## Agra Police Head Constable v. State (CW-1952-0001)

**Record:** CW-1952-0001 (compiler id CWC-0391); case UTTARP-004
**Title:** Agra Police Head Constable v. State
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Mukerji
**Case number / citation:** AIR 1953 All 110
**Judgment:** 1952-09-17 (1952, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1949-10-11 (1949)
**Place:** Agra, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Agra; police station or unit: Idgah outpost, Agra city; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1947 s.5(2); PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Mahfooz Ali (Head Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Agra man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court records the following account. Head Constable Mahfooz Ali, attached to Idgah outpost in Agra city, threatened complainant \[name withheld\] with prosecution under Section 420 IPC over a dispute regarding a promissory note, demanding Rs 50 (settled at Rs 20) as illegal gratification to submit a favourable enquiry report. An Agra man reported the extortion to town Congress representatives and the City Magistrate, leading to an anti-corruption trap on 11 October 1949 where marked currency notes were handed to the officer and recovered from his pocket. The Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, convicted him of criminal misconduct under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the challenge, rejecting technical defences regarding habitual misconduct and statutory warnings under Section 7, and affirmed the conviction and sentence in full.

> In my judgment, therefore, this appeal has no force and I accordingly dismiss it. The conviction and the sentence of the appellant is maintained. The appellant is on bail. He will immediately surrender to his bail and serve out his sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1062066/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 24
**display title redacted:** Agra Police Head Constable v. State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1953 All 110', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1952-09-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1953 All 110', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1062066/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Allahabad HC upheld conviction of Head Constable under s. 5(2) PC Act 1947 for extracting Rs 20 bribe, affirming 2 years RI and fine.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1952-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1952-0001)

## U.P. Police Inspector of Police (officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police) vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (CW-1961-0001)

**Record:** CW-1961-0001 (compiler id CWC-1095); case GAP3-127-003
**Title:** U.P. Police Inspector of Police (officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police) vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. K. Das; N. Rajagopala Ayyangar; M. Hidayatullah; K. C. Das Gupta; J. C. Shah
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 490 of 1957
**Judgment:** 1961-03-06 (1961, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1947-01-01 (1947)
**Place:** Uttar Pradesh; police station or unit: Anti-Corruption Department, U.P. Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Police Act 1861 s.7; U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1947; Constitution Art. 14; Constitution Art. 311
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police (officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police), U.P. Police, Anti-Corruption Department (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 6 March 1961 dismissed with costs the appeal of \[name withheld\], a U.P. Police Inspector officiating as Deputy Superintendent in the Anti-Corruption Department, upholding his dismissal from service. The Court recorded that complaints of immorality, corruption and gross dereliction of duty led to an Administrative Tribunal enquiry, which recommended dismissal in February 1950, and the Governor dismissed him with effect from December 1950. The majority held the Governor's dismissal power was not ousted by the Police Act and the Tribunal procedure caused no prejudice or substantial Article 14 discrimination. The dismissal therefore stood; no criminal conviction arose on this record. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Tribunal framed three charges against the appellant, and after a detailed survey of the evidence recommended on February 4, 1950, that the appellant be dismissed from service. The Governor then served a notice requiring the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service and after considering the explanation submitted by the appellant, the Governor ordered that the appellant be dismissed with effect from December 5, 1950.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/642587/jagannath-prasad-sharma-appellant-hash-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-respondent/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1916227/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 1
**display title redacted:** U.P. Police Inspector of Police (officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police) vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1961-03-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Appeal No. 490 of 1957', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/642587/jagannath-prasad-sharma-appellant-hash-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1916227/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC upheld dismissal of Inspector/DSP for corruption, immorality and dereliction.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1961-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1961-0001)

## Maulud Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (CW-1962-0001)

**Record:** CW-1962-0001 (compiler id CWC-0500); case SWDERELI-010; aliases: CWC-1477
**Title:** Maulud Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K. Subba Rao
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1961
**Judgment:** 1962-11-13 (1962, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1956-12-15 (1956)
**Place:** Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Mailani; police station or unit: PS Mailani, Kheri; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 218
**Officers (gated display forms):** Maulud Ahmad (Head Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Mailani man; Mailani man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. After a railway-party shoot killed a Mailani man and a Mailani man on the night of 14/15 December 1956, Head Constable Maulud Ahmad of PS Mailani entered a false antedated report in the General Diary showing Railway Guard Chauhan had deposited his gun the previous evening, creating alibi evidence to save Chauhan from prosecution. All co-accused were acquitted but the appellant alone was convicted under section 218 IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, affirmed by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). The Supreme Court held that the guard's acquittal did not exonerate the appellant since intent at the time of the false entry governed, and that section 42 of the Police Act barred only Police Act prosecutions. It dismissed the appeal, warning that manipulated police records would end honest investigation. Subcategory corrected to dereliction/evidence-tampering: the fabrication shielded an accused rather than implicating innocents. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the view of the learned judge it was not established conclusively that Chauhan abetted the appellant in manipulating the record but that could not exonerate the appellant for it had been held on the evidence that the false entries had been made in the record by the appellant with a view to save Chauhan.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1288544/); [advocatekhoj.com](https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1962/november/maulud-ahmad-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-insc-309-13-november-1962-11); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=002691823000&title=maulud-ahmad-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1288544/?formInput=%22general%20diary%22)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Maulud Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1961', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1962-11-13', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1961', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1288544/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1962/november/maulud-ahmad-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-insc-309-13-november-1962-11', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=002691823000&title=maulud-ahmad-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1288544/?formInput=%22general%20diary%22', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Head Constable's s.218 IPC conviction for antedated false GD entry upheld; 2 years RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1962-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1962-0001)

## Kairana Man v. Sri \[name withheld\] and Others (CW-1963-0004)

**Record:** CW-1963-0004 (compiler id CWC-0934); case GAP2-1-006
**Title:** Kairana Man v. Sri \[name withheld\] and Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Gyanendra Kumar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1532 of 1962 / AIR 1965 All 161 : (1965) CriLJ 413
**Judgment:** 1963-10-16 (1963, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1961-10-15 (1961)
**Place:** Shamli, Uttar Pradesh (district at time: Muzaffarnagar); city town: Kairana; police station or unit: Police Station Kairana; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 342; IPC 109
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Station Kairana; Constable, Police Station Kairana; Constable, Police Station Kairana; Constable, Police Station Kairana (4 in record)
**Victims:** Kairana man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** fine
**Sentence type:** fine (fine)

The Allahabad High Court (single Judge, 16-10-1963) allowed the complainant appeal against acquittal and convicted Head Constable and Constables, \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] of Police Station Kairana under section 342/109 IPC. The court found that on 15-10-1961 the police party arrested homoeopath a Kairana man without warrant and detained him at the thana till the next morning, with proceedings under sections 107/117 CrPC later dropped for want of evidence. The court held only a non-cognizable offence was ever alleged (no section specified in the judgment), so section 151 CrPC could not justify the arrest, and section 79 IPC gave no protection. It set aside the Magistrate acquittal and fined the head constable100 and each constable50, with simple imprisonment in default. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In view of the above discussion, I allow the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal of the respondents recorded by the Magistrate and convict them u/s 342/109 I. P. C.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/292167/mohammad-ali-vs-sri-ram-swarup-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Kairana Man v. Sri \[name withheld\] and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1963-10-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1965 All 161 : (1965) CriLJ 413', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/292167/mohammad-ali-vs-sri-ram-swarup-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC reversed Magistrate acquittal; 4 Kairana police convicted for unlawful arrest and detention.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-1963-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1963-0004)

## Shikarpur Police Constable vs State of U.P. (CW-1970-0002)

**Record:** CW-1970-0002 (compiler id CWC-0958); case GAP3-1-002
**Title:** Shikarpur Police Constable vs State of U.P.
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: M.N. Shukla
**Case number / citation:** Second Appeal No. 323 of 1964 / AIR 1971 All 210
**Judgment:** 1970-07-14 (1970, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1959-04-10 (1959)
**Place:** Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Shikarpur; police station or unit: Police Station Shikarpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Police Act 1861 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Station Shikarpur, Bulandshahr (1 in record)
**Victims:** Shikarpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court records the following account. The appellant, a constable at Police Station Shikarpur, Bulandshahr, was charged with other constables under section 7 of the Police Act for arresting a Shikarpur man on 10 April 1959, fracturing his legs, and concealing it with a false general-diary report. The Superintendent of Police dismissed him on 29 June 1959 after a departmental enquiry; his departmental appeal and revision failed, as did his civil suit in first appeal. The Court held the enquiry by the authorised Deputy Superintendent of Police was competent under the Police Regulations and the dismissal procedure valid. The Court dismissed the second appeal with costs, leaving the dismissal standing. No criminal prosecution outcome is recorded in this judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> He along with some other constables was charged u/s 7 of the Police Act for arresting a Shikarpur man on 10-4-1959 causing fracture on his legs and concealing the cause thereof by making a false report in the general diary.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/298810/roshanlal-sharma-appellant-hash-state-of-up-respondent/); AIR 1971 All 210
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Shikarpur Police Constable vs State of U.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1970-07-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1971 All 210', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/298810/roshanlal-sharma-appellant-hash-state-of-up-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'AIR 1971 All 210', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed second appeal; 1959 dismissal for custodial assault causing fracture plus false GD entry stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1970-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1970-0002)

## State of Uttar Pradesh vs Uttar Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (confirmed) (CW-1977-0003)

**Record:** CW-1977-0003 (compiler id CWC-1104); case GAP3-127-013
**Title:** State of Uttar Pradesh vs Uttar Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (confirmed)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: P. N. Shinghal; Y. V. Chandrachud; P. K. Goswami
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 2339 of 1968 / AIR 1977 SC 1680; (1977) 2 SCC 806
**Judgment:** 1977-04-04 (1977, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1954-01-01 (1954)
**Place:** Etah, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Etah; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1947; IPC
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (confirmed), Etah, Uttar Pradesh Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Supreme Court on 4 April 1977 allowed the State's appeal and dismissed former sub-inspector 's suit, leaving his 1954 corruption-based dismissal intact. The Court found that two cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Penal Code had been registered against the confirmed Etah SI following an anonymous complaint, and that he had been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector-General. It held that his plea that only the Inspector-General could dismiss him under Article 311(1) ought to have been raised in his earlier writ petition and was barred by constructive res judicata. The merits of the corruption charges were not re-examined, and no compensation was ordered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Two cases were registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Penal Code.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/739415/); [legalauthority.in](https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-nawab-hussain-33885)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** State of Uttar Pradesh vs Uttar Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (confirmed)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1977-04-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1977 SC 1680; (1977) 2 SCC 806', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/739415/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-nawab-hussain-33885', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC restored corruption-based dismissal of Etah SI on constructive res judicata; merits of PC Act charges not re-examined.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1977-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1977-0003)

## Vishnu Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (CW-1981-0001)

**Record:** CW-1981-0001 (compiler id CWC-0393); case UTTARP-006
**Title:** Vishnu Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: P.N. Goel
**Case number / citation:** 1981 Cri LJ 1489
**Judgment:** 1981-09-04 (1981, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1977-05-05 (1977)
**Place:** Agra, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Runkata; police station or unit: Police outpost Runkata, PS Achhnera, Agra; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1947 s.5(2); PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d); IPC 224
**Officers (gated display forms):** Vishnu Prasad (Head Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Runkata woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 1.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court records the following account. Head Constable Vishnu Prasad, in charge of police outpost Runkata under Achhnera Police Station in Agra, forcibly took complainant, a Runkata woman, from her home to a culvert outside her village and demanded a bribe of Rs 500 (settled at Rs 125) to stop harassing her family and release her. The complainant reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption CID, Agra, and a trap was laid on 5 May 1977 near Sudhir Petrol Pump, where initialled currency notes were handed to the officer. When the trap party moved in, the appellant threw the notes under a cot, resisted custody, and fled from police custody. The Special Judge, Agra, convicted him under Sections 161 and 224 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. On appeal, the High Court set aside the Section 161 IPC conviction (holding the extortionate act was an abuse of office rather than an official function), affirmed the convictions under Section 5(2) of the PC Act and Section 224 IPC, reduced the PC Act sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment, and directed that he be taken into custody.

> Conviction of the appellant under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is affirmed but the sentence of two years R. I. awarded by the special Judge is reduced to R. I. for one year. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 224, I.P.C. are affirmed. The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1786563/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 29
**display title redacted:** Vishnu Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1981 Cri LJ 1489', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1981-09-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '1981 Cri LJ 1489', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1786563/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Allahabad HC affirmed Head Constable conviction under s. 5(2) PC Act 1947 and s. 224 IPC, reducing imprisonment to 1 year RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1981-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1981-0001)

## State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav and Ors. (CW-1985-0001)

**Record:** CW-1985-0001 (compiler id CWC-0332); case UTTARP-002; aliases: CWC-1470
**Title:** State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav and Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Y.V. Chandrachud; Amarendra Nath Sen
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1975 / (1985) 1 SCC 552; AIR 1985 SC 416
**Judgment:** 1985-01-18 (1985, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1969-08-29 (1969)
**Place:** Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Fatehpur; police station or unit: Hussainganj Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 220
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ram Sagar Yadav (Station House Officer); Shobha Nath @ Pujari (Constable); Constable, Hussainganj Police Station; Constable, Hussainganj Police Station (4 in record)
**Victims:** Fatehpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 7.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. A Fatehpur man of village Haibatpur lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, against Constable for extorting a bribe in a cattle trespass dispute. In retaliation, Station House Officer Ram Sagar Yadav dispatched two constables to arrest a Fatehpur man on a trumped-up dacoity charge on 29 August 1969, where he was mercilessly beaten inside Hussainganj Police Station. When brought in a collapsed state to the Additional District Magistrate for remand, a Fatehpur man made a dying declaration naming the Darogah and constables before succumbing to nineteen injuries later that evening. The Sessions Judge convicted the SHO and three constables under Section 304 Part II IPC (and the SHO under Section 220 IPC), but the Allahabad High Court acquitted them. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court acquittal and affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding the dying declaration unimpeachable and famously recommending that the legislature amend the law on the burden of proof in custodial violence cases. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Police Officers alone, and none else, can give evidence as regards the circumstances in which a person in their custody comes to receive injuries while in their custody. Bound by ties of a kind of brotherhood, they often prefer to remain silent in such situations and when they choose to speak, they put their own gloss upon facts and pervert the truth.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/596213/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/853108/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1985-01-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1985) 1 SCC 552; AIR 1985 SC 416', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/596213/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/853108/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court reversed High Court acquittal, restoring Sessions Court convictions of SHO and 3 constables under s. 304 Part II IPC for custodial death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-1985-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1985-0001)

## Sheo Kumar Gupta, S.I. & Ors. v. State of U.P. (M. T. case) (CW-1988-0001)

**Record:** CW-1988-0001 (compiler id CWC-0476); case SWCUSTOD-004
**Title:** Sheo Kumar Gupta, S.I. & Ors. v. State of U.P. (M. T. case)
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: B.N. Katju; G.K. Mathur
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 183 of 1988 and 168 of 1988 / (1988) 09 AHC CK 0047
**Judgment:** 1988-09-23 (1988, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-06-01 (1980)
**Place:** Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh (district at time: Meerut); city town: Baghpat; police station or unit: PS Baghpat; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302/149; IPC 201; IPC 218; IPC 120B; IPC 323/149; IPC 354/149; IPC 148; IPC 147
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sheo Kumar Gupta (Sub-Inspector); Jamadar Singh (Sub-Inspector); Ram Giri (Sub-Inspector); Kashi Ram (Head Constable); Rakesh s/o Ranjit Singh (Constable); Rakesh s/o Viladhar Sharma (Constable); Anand Giri (Constable); Pratap Singh (Constable); Sant Singh (Constable); Subhash (Constable) (10 in record)
**Victims:** Baghpat woman; Baghpat man; Baghpat resident; Baghpat resident (4 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Allahabad High Court upheld every conviction of the ten PS Baghpat policemen who, avenging an assault on a fellow Sub-Inspector, shot dead the complainant's husband and two others and stripped, assaulted and detained the complainant in June 1980. The Court held all appellants were members of an unlawful assembly guilty of the offences found by the trial court, including Section 354/149 with two years RI. It reduced the six death sentences to life imprisonment, upheld the four existing life terms and set aside the fines. The appellants on bail were ordered to be taken into custody forthwith. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The fact that Smt. \[the complainant\] was made naked and assaulted and taken to P. S. Baghpat from the place of occurrence indicates that she was the root cause of the incident. All the appellants were, therefore, members of an unlawful assembly and were guilty of the offences of which they have been convicted by the trial court.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/303669/sheo-kumar-guptasi-and-ors-appellant-hash-state-of-up-respondent/); [blog.ipleaders.in](https://blog.ipleaders.in/custodial-rape/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 43
**display title redacted:** Sheo Kumar Gupta, S.I. & Ors. v. State of U.P. (M. T. case)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1988) 09 AHC CK 0047', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1988-09-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(1988) 09 AHC CK 0047', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/303669/sheo-kumar-guptasi-and-ors-appellant-hash-state-of-up-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://blog.ipleaders.in/custodial-rape/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld all convictions of 10 Baghpat policemen; death terms cut to life.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'the complainant'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': None, 'descriptor': None}; {'age': None, 'gender': None, 'descriptor': None}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1988-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1988-0001)

## Kurebhar Police Sub-Inspector v. State of U.P. (CW-1990-0001)

**Record:** CW-1990-0001 (compiler id CWC-0338); case UTTARP-001
**Title:** Kurebhar Police Sub-Inspector v. State of U.P.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: A.M. Ahmadi; M. Fathima Beevi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 111 and 477 of 1979 / AIR 1990 SC 709; 1990 Supp SCC 656
**Judgment:** 1990-01-12 (1990, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1971-10-19 (1971)
**Place:** Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Kurebhar; police station or unit: PS Kure Bhar, Sultanpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by Supreme Court (conviction_by_sc)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 330; IPC 201; IPC 218; IPC 34; IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d); PC Act 1947 s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Rafiuddin Khan (Sub-Inspector); Gauri Shankar Sharma (Head Moharrir) (2 in record)
**Victims:** Kurebhar man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 7.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. A Kurebhar man was arrested from his residence on 19 October 1971 and beaten inside PS Kure Bhar by Sub-Inspector Rafiuddin Khan, sustaining 28 injuries before dying of shock and haemorrhage on 20 October 1971, after which false General Diary entries were posted to cover up the custodial death. The Special Judge, Sultanpur convicted the Sub-Inspector under Sections 304 Part II, 330, 201, 218/34 and 161 IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Head Moharrir Gauri Shankar Sharma under Sections 201 and 218 IPC. The High Court acquitted the Sub-Inspector entirely while confirming the Moharrir with a reduced sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the Moharrir's appeal and allowed the State's appeal, restoring the Sub-Inspector's conviction and sentence on all counts and directing his surrender, famously observing that death in police custody must be curbed with a heavy hand.

> Death in police custody must be seriously viewed for otherwise we will help take a stride in the direction of police raj. It must be curbed with a heavy hand.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/320189/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Kurebhar Police Sub-Inspector v. State of U.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1990-01-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1990 SC 709; 1990 Supp SCC 656', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/320189/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court restored SI Rafiuddin Khan's conviction (7 years u/s 304-II) for custodial death and dismissed Head Moharrir's appeal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by Supreme Court.

[Open CW-1990-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1990-0001)

## Bareilly Woman v. State of U.P. (CW-1994-0003)

**Record:** CW-1994-0003 (compiler id CWC-0334); case NORTH-002
**Title:** Bareilly Woman v. State of U.P.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. Mohan; S.B. Majmudar
**Case number / citation:** (1994) 6 SCC 565; AIR 1995 SC 117
**Judgment:** 1994-10-06 (1994, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-07-23 (1993)
**Place:** Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Bareilly; police station or unit: Chauki Chauraha outpost, Bareilly; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 32
**Officers (gated display forms):** J.C. Upadhyay (Station House Officer); Sukhpal Singh (Senior Sub-Inspector); Narendrapal Singh (Sub-Inspector); K.C. Tyagi (Investigating Officer) (4 in record)
**Victims:** Bareilly woman; Bareilly man; Bareilly man (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Following an inter-religious or inter-caste marriage between a Bareilly woman and a Bareilly man, Bareilly police unlawfully detained the couple and relatives in July 1993 under the pretext that a Bareilly woman had been abducted and raped. Police officers physically assaulted a Bareilly man and his brother with dandas and subjected a Bareilly woman to severe physical and psychological torture, poking a danda into her stomach and keeping her awake to compel her to falsely implicate her husband. The Supreme Court accepted the inquiry report of the District Judge, Bareilly, which thoroughly indicted the police for illegal arrest, physical torture, and fabrication of Section 161 CrPC statements. Condemning the uncivilized conduct of the police, the Supreme Court ordered criminal prosecution of all involved officers and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay compensation of Rs 10,000 each to a Bareilly woman and a Bareilly man and Rs 5,000 to each other illegally detained relative, recoverable personally from the officers. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This clearly brings out not only high-handedness of the police but also uncivilised behaviour on their part. It is difficult to understand why Sukhpal Singh SSI assaulted a Bareilly woman on her leg with danda and poked it in her stomach.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1506852/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 4
**display title redacted:** Bareilly Woman v. State of U.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1994-10-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(1994) 6 SCC 565; AIR 1995 SC 117', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1506852/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court accepted District Judge report indicting Bareilly police for torture and fabrication, awarded compensation recoverable from officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1994-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1994-0003)

## Girwan Woman v. State of U.P. and Others (CW-2001-0013)

**Record:** CW-2001-0013 (compiler id CWC-0935); case GAP2-1-002
**Title:** Girwan Woman v. State of U.P. and Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Binod Kumar Roy; D. R. Chaudhary
**Case number / citation:** C.M.W.P. No. 13814 of 1998 / (2001) 1 AWC 839 : (2001) CriLJ 2090
**Judgment:** 2001-02-07 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-04-12 (1994)
**Place:** Banda, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Girwan; police station or unit: Police Station Girwan, Banda; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304; IPC 218; IPC 193; IPC 201; SC/ST Act 1989 s.3(1); Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Police Station Girwan, Banda; Head Constable, Police Station Girwan, Banda (2 in record)
**Victims:** Girwan man, age 42 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, 7-2-2001) held that the beating of a Girwan man, aged 42, by the Station House Officer and head constable of Police Station Girwan, Banda, on 12 April 1994, causing head injuries that led to his death on 14 April 1994, breached his fundamental right to life under Article 21. The court found the head injuries were apparently on account of custodial violence in the police station and applied the strict-liability principle in Nilabati Behera and D.K. Basu. It ordered the State to pay the widow Rs.1,50,000 compensation within three months (in addition to Rs.10,000 ex gratia already paid), with liberty to be indemnified by the wrongdoers, without prejudice to the pending criminal trial. The court also directed the State to arrest the two absconding policemen and inquire into salary payments to them with disciplinary action against those responsible. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The injuries on head are apparently on account of custodial violence in the police station. From the materials on the record, this much is clear to us that a Girwan man's fundamental right to have liberty of life was breached by the S.H.O. and the head constable of the police station concerned.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/285868/smt-chandania-vs-state-of-up-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Girwan Woman v. State of U.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-02-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2001) 1 AWC 839 : (2001) CriLJ 2090', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/285868/smt-chandania-vs-state-of-up-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held Article 21 breach by named SHO and head constable; Rs.1.5 lakh compensation ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2001-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0013)

## Sojna Police Station Officer vs State of U.P. (CW-2002-0018)

**Record:** CW-2002-0018 (compiler id CWC-0959); case GAP3-2-001
**Title:** Sojna Police Station Officer vs State of U.P.
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: J. Gupta; Imtiyaz Murtaza
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 2350 of 1997 / 2002 CriLJ 2220
**Judgment:** 2002-02-14 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-03-07 (1987)
**Place:** Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Sojna; police station or unit: Police Station Sojna; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 302; IPC 342
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station Officer, Police Station Sojna, Lalitpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Sojna man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs; Rs 15,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court records the following account. Station Officer arrested a Sojna man on 7 March 1987 and, the Court found, gave him repeated lathi blows at Sojna Tigadda and inside the police station courtyard and lock-up; a Sojna man died in custody on 8 March 1987 with 18 ante-mortem lathi injuries, death due to shock and haemorrhage. The trial court had convicted \[name withheld\] under sections 302/342 IPC (life imprisonment) and two constables under sections 323/342 IPC. The Court held the custodial assault fully proved against \[name withheld\] by six consistent eyewitnesses corroborated by the post-mortem, but altered the conviction to section 304 Part II IPC with two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs 25,000 fine, Rs 15,000 to the next of kin. The Court acquitted both constables on benefit of doubt, set aside the section 342 conviction, dismissed the State appeal, and ordered \[name withheld\] taken into custody forthwith.

> From the evidence available on record both documentary and oral we are satisfied that \[name withheld\] had caused injuries to deceased \[name withheld\] while he was in police custody and even if it is not possible to say that he intended to cause the death of a Sojna man, but he can certainly be clothed with the knowledge that the injuries which were being caused to the deceased at the police station were likely to cause his death though probably without any intention to cause his death, or even to cause such bodily injuries to him as were likely to cause death. The offence would fall under Section 304- Part II I.P.C.

**Sources (2):** [legalindia.com](https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/j-b-katariya-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-february-2002); 2002 CriLJ 2220
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Sojna Police Station Officer vs State of U.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2002 CriLJ 2220', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2002-02-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2002 CriLJ 2220', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.legalindia.com/judgments/j-b-katariya-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-february-2002', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '2002 CriLJ 2220', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held custodial beating proved against SO; altered 302 to 304 Part II, 2 years RI plus Rs 25,000 fine.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0018)

## Golhaura Man and Others vs State of U.P. and Others (CW-2002-0014)

**Record:** CW-2002-0014 (compiler id CWC-0742); case GAP3-003
**Title:** Golhaura Man and Others vs State of U.P. and Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: S.R. Singh; R.K. Dash
**Case number / citation:** Criminal M.W.P. No. 1754 of 1999 / (2002) 07 AHC CK 0152; 2002 CriLJ 4546
**Judgment:** 2002-07-19 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-10-16 (1998)
**Place:** Siddharthnagar, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Golhaura; police station or unit: Golhaura Police Station, Siddharthnagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 384; IPC 342; IPC 323; IPC 201; IPC 504; IPC 506; SC/ST Act 1989 s.3
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constables and officers on lock-up duty, Golhaura Police Station, Siddharthnagar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Golhaura man, age 27 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2.5 lakh (Rs 2,50,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court records the following account. A Golhaura man, aged 27, was arrested on 14 October 1998 in a kidnapping case and kept in the Golhaura police lock-up for three days, where the family alleged he was beaten to death. Police claimed he hanged himself, obtained a post-mortem report of hanging and cremated the body; an FIR for murder was later registered against police personnel on a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. direction. The Division Bench rejected the suicide plea as too big a pill to be swallowed, held the police officers and the autopsy doctor acted hand in glove to fabricate the post-mortem report, and found D.K. Basu safeguards violated. It allowed the writ petition, directed Rs. 2,50,000 compensation (Rs. 1,50,000 to parents, Rs. 1,00,000 to the widow) recoverable from the responsible police officers, and left criminal liability to the pending CBCID murder investigation.

> The aforesaid amount may be recovered by the State from the concerned police officers responsible for the death of the deceased in the police lock-up.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/346569/siddhu-and-others-vs-state-of-up-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Golhaura Man and Others vs State of U.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-07-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 250,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2002) 07 AHC CK 0152; 2002 CriLJ 4546', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/346569/siddhu-and-others-vs-state-of-up-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; lock-up torture death held proved, Rs. 2.5 lakh compensation recoverable from police.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2002-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0014)

## Government Railway Police Constable v. Superintendent of Police (Railways) (CW-2002-0029)

**Record:** CW-2002-0029 (compiler id CWC-0936); case GAP2-1-004
**Title:** Government Railway Police Constable v. Superintendent of Police (Railways)
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Sunil Ambwani
**Case number / citation:** C.M.W.P. No. 19352 of 2002 / (2002) 3 UPLBEC 2765
**Judgment:** 2002-08-23 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-12-26 (2000)
**Place:** Agra, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Agra; police station or unit: Government Railway Police, Agra; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 Rule 8(2)(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Government Railway Police, Agra (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Allahabad High Court (single Judge, 23-8-2002) dismissed the writ petition of Constable (Civil Police posted to Government Railway Police, Agra) challenging his dismissal dated 17-2-2001 under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The court found sufficient material, including statements of fellow police personnel recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, that the petitioner formed a gang and harboured criminals committing robberies on trains where he was on duty and shared the booty. The court held direct evidence of complicity could not feasibly be procured, so dispensing with a regular enquiry in public interest on Tulsiram Patel principles was justified, with no mala fides pleaded. The dismissal from service was upheld with no order as to costs; no criminal-trial component is recorded in the judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In my opinion, there was sufficient material on record to support the fact that the petitioner was actively involved in forming a gang and harbouring the criminals for committing crimes in trains on which he was assigned duty; that it was not possible to procure direct evidence against his complicity and that in the prevailing situation the enquiry was rightly dispensed with.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/262534/constable-5814-ashish-kumar-vs-superintendent-of-police-rai/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Government Railway Police Constable v. Superintendent of Police (Railways)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2002-08-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2002) 3 UPLBEC 2765', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/262534/constable-5814-ashish-kumar-vs-superintendent-of-police-rai/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld Rule 8(2)(b) dismissal of GRP constable for patronising train robbers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0029)

## Fatehpur Police Constable v. State of U.P. (CW-2002-0030)

**Record:** CW-2002-0030 (compiler id CWC-0937); case GAP2-1-003
**Title:** Fatehpur Police Constable v. State of U.P.
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: M.A. Khan
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 1987 (S.T. No. 306 of 1985) / (2003) CriLJ 2056
**Judgment:** 2002-08-26 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1985-05-09 (1985)
**Place:** Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Fatehpur; police station or unit: Police Station Fatehpur, Barabanki; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 376
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Station Fatehpur, Barabanki (1 in record)
**Victims:** Fatehpur woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 6 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Allahabad High Court (single Judge, 26-8-2002) dismissed the appeal of Police Constable of Police Station Fatehpur, Barabanki, and upheld his six-year rigorous imprisonment conviction under section 376 IPC imposed by the Sessions Judge on 11-3-1987. The court found that on 9-5-1985, inside police station premises, the appellant took the infant daughter of a Sub-Inspector family into his quarter and raped her, crediting the eyewitness account of the mother and the independent witness \[name withheld\]. The court held the medical evidence proved rape of a girl aged less than one year beyond doubt and found no illegality in the trial court order. It cancelled bail, discharged sureties, and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, to arrest the appellant to serve the sentence. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The statement of Medical Officer proves beyond doubt that the girl who was less than one year, was subjected to rape by the appellant. There is absolutely no reason to discard the prosecution case and the learned Court below was fully justified in believing the prosecution case, convicting the appellant and I find no illegality or impropriety in the said order passed by the learned Court below.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/331308/raj-nath-vs-state-of-up/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Fatehpur Police Constable v. State of U.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['subcategory'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2003) CriLJ 2056', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2002-08-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2003) CriLJ 2056', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/331308/raj-nath-vs-state-of-up/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed appeal; 6-year RI for rape by on-duty constable confirmed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0030)

## Ashok Kumar v. Senior Superintendent of Police & Ors. (CW-2003-0008)

**Record:** CW-2003-0008 (compiler id CWC-0397); case UTTARP-010
**Title:** Ashok Kumar v. Senior Superintendent of Police & Ors.
**Court:** Allahabad High Court
**Case number / citation:** LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-39
**Judgment:** 2003-09-24 (2003, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-06-13 (2000)
**Place:** Mathura, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Mathura; police station or unit: Civil Police, Mathura (court lock-up duty); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 223; IPC 224; Constitution Art. 311; UP Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1991 r.8(2)(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ashok Kumar (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Allahabad High Court upheld the dismissal of Constable Ashok Kumar, who was on court lock-up duty at Mathura on 13 June 2000 when hardened criminal Prakash, accused in about fifteen cases including murders, escaped from custody. The enquiry found the petitioner acted in complicity with co-constable \[name withheld\] and allowed the escape after accepting a bribe, a charge supported by the re-arrested criminal deposition and the petitioner own signed statement, with Case Crime No. 91 of 2000 under Sections 223 and 224 IPC registered. The Court held the SSP satisfaction for dispensing with a full enquiry under Rule 8(2)(b) of the 1991 Rules was based on material on record and neither arbitrary nor mala fide. It declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition. No PC Act trial was involved; the bribe finding is disciplinary only. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Senior Superintendent of Police found that petitioner was in complicity with the criminal who made good his escape. He was subsequently apprehended and deposed that he had given bribe to petitioner.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/714149/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=303002208100&title=ashok-kumar-vs-senior-superintendent-of-police); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/491393/ashok-kumar-vs-senior-superintendent)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Ashok Kumar v. Senior Superintendent of Police & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['subcategory'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2003-09-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-39', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/714149/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=303002208100&title=ashok-kumar-vs-senior-superintendent-of-police', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/491393/ashok-kumar-vs-senior-superintendent', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Dismissal for bribe-aided escape of murder accused from lock-up upheld; writ dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2003-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2003-0008)

## Bhoopat Singh v. J.B. Kataria and Ors. (CW-2009-0008)

**Record:** CW-2009-0008 (compiler id CWC-0392); case UTTARP-003
**Title:** Bhoopat Singh v. J.B. Kataria and Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: B.N. Agrawal; G.S. Singhvi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 976-977 of 2002
**Judgment:** 2009-08-11 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-03-07 (1987)
**Place:** Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Sojna; police station or unit: PS Sojna, Lalitpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 342
**Officers (gated display forms):** J.B. Katariya (Station Officer) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Sojna man, age 20 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 5.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. A Sojna man, a young medical practitioner of village Sojna, was arrested on 7 March 1987 under Section 307 IPC and brutally assaulted by Station Officer J.B. Katariya, sustaining 18 injuries across his body before succumbing to death in police custody on 8/9 March 1987. The Special Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, convicted Katariya of murder under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment, but the Allahabad High Court converted the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and reduced the sentence to two years imprisonment with a Rs 25,000 fine. On cross-appeals, the Supreme Court held that the officer mercilessly assaulted the deceased while in custody, taking undue advantage of his official position. The Supreme Court dismissed Katariya appeal, affirmed his conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, cancelled his bail, and enhanced his sentence of imprisonment from two years to five years rigorous imprisonment.

> we consider it necessary to mention that the appellant had taken undue advantage of his position as a police officer and mercilessly assaulted the deceased while he was in police custody. As many as 18 injuries were inflicted on the person of the deceased.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1494641/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17373/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110740214/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Bhoopat Singh v. J.B. Kataria and Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 976-977 of 2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2009-08-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 976-977 of 2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1494641/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17373/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110740214/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court upheld s. 304 Part II IPC conviction of SO Katariya for custodial death and enhanced sentence from 2 to 5 years RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0008)

## Prayagraj Police Constable v. State of U.P. & Ors. (CW-2011-0036)

**Record:** CW-2011-0036 (compiler id CWC-1117); case GAP3-130-002
**Title:** Prayagraj Police Constable v. State of U.P. & Ors.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Mukundakam Sharma; Anil R. Dave
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 7643 of 2011 / \[2011\] 11 SCR 136
**Judgment:** 2011-09-05 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-10-27 (1991)
**Place:** Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh (district at time: Allahabad); city town: Prayagraj; police station or unit: IV Battalion, PAC, Allahabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 392
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, IV Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary, Allahabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The appellant, a constable in the IV Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary, Allahabad, was unauthorisedly absent on 27 October 1991 and that evening forcibly grabbed a liquor bottle from a wine shop and threatened the staff; medical examination found he had consumed alcohol though he was not intoxicated. A departmental inquiry held the charges proved and he was dismissed on 11 February 1993; the departmental appeal, the U.P. Public Services Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court all upheld the dismissal, though he was acquitted in the linked criminal case under Section 392 IPC. The Supreme Court held the criminal acquittal had no bearing on the departmental proceedings given the different standards of proof, and that dismissal of a member of a disciplined force found under the influence of liquor was not shocking to the conscience. The appeal was dismissed with parties bearing their own costs.

> The appellant belongs to a disciplinary force and the members of such a force is required to maintain discipline and to act in a befitting manner in public. Instead of that, he was found under the influence of liquor and then indulged himself in an offence.

**Sources (1):** [orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net](https://orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net/cms-cnr-data/supreme_court_data/pdf_files/jonew/judis/38454.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Prayagraj Police Constable v. State of U.P. & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-09-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '\[2011\] 11 SCR 136', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net/cms-cnr-data/supreme_court_data/pdf_files/jonew/judis/38454.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC dismissed appeal; dismissal of PAC constable for absence and liquor-related misconduct upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2011-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0036)

## Chhaisa Man and Others vs State of U.P. and Others (CW-2011-0038)

**Record:** CW-2011-0038 (compiler id CWC-0960); case GAP3-4-001
**Title:** Chhaisa Man and Others vs State of U.P. and Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Ravindra Singh; Arvind K. Tripathi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10638 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2011-09-16 (2011, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-06-20 (2000)
**Place:** Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (district at time: Gautam Budh Nagar); city town: Chhaisa; police station or unit: Police Station Jarcha; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 323; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar police; Constable, Gautam Budh Nagar police (2 in record)
**Victims:** Chhaisa man; Chhaisa man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 20 lakh (Rs 20,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court records the following account. On 20 June 2000, during panchayat polling at Chhaisa, Dadri, a police party led by Circle Officer lathi-charged and fired four rounds after villagers objected to being pressed to leave the queue; a Chhaisa man and a Chhaisa man, sitting on a cot in a gher, were shot dead on the spot and other villagers were injured. Case Crime No.74/2000 under sections 302/323 IPC was registered at P.S. Jarcha; both the police investigation and the CDO's magisterial inquiry found DySP \[name withheld\] and Constable guilty of negligence, and prosecution sanction was granted on 4 January 2008. The Court held this an established violation of the fundamental right to life and no further inquiry was needed. The Court directed the State to pay Rs 10 lakh each to the two widows/legal heirs within three months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the present case there was negligence on part of the police personnel of the State of U.P. who fired causing death of two innocent villagers which is clear violation of fundamental right to life.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31838786/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Chhaisa Man and Others vs State of U.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2011-09-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 2,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10638 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31838786/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC found negligent police firing killed two villagers and directed Rs 10 lakh each to the two families.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2011-0038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2011-0038)

## Uttar Pradesh Man and Others v. State of U.P. (CW-2014-0010)

**Record:** CW-2014-0010 (compiler id CWC-0455); case SWCUSTOD-025
**Title:** Uttar Pradesh Man and Others v. State of U.P.
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya; Prafulla Chandra Pant
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 40 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2014-10-10 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-03-07 (1987)
**Place:** Uttar Pradesh; police station or unit: PS Sojna; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station Officer, PS Sojna; Constable, PS Sojna; Constable, PS Sojna (3 in record)
**Victims:** Uttar Pradesh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court awarded a total of Rs.10 lakh to the widow and legal representatives of a Uttar Pradesh man, who died in PS Sojna custody on 8/9 March 1987 after a 2 a.m. altercation with drunken constables and a false Section 307 FIR against him. The order records that the guilty police officials stood convicted under Section 304 Part II with punishment enhanced by the Supreme Court itself from 2 to 5 years. The compensation, inclusive of Rs.5 lakh interim relief sanctioned by the State, was payable within two months with 6% default interest, recoverable from the three named guilty personnel. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> An FIR was lodged against police officials who were convicted under Section 304 Part II by the Trial Court and the same was affirmed by this Court by enhancing the punishment from 2 years to 5 years imprisonment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110740214/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Uttar Pradesh Man and Others v. State of U.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-10-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 40 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110740214/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC compensation order text verified; Rs.10L for established 1987 custodial death, recovery from 3 named.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2014-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0010)

## Civil Police Head Constable v. State of U.P. and Others (CW-2015-0024)

**Record:** CW-2015-0024 (compiler id CWC-0964); case GAP3-6-004
**Title:** Civil Police Head Constable v. State of U.P. and Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Yashwant Varma
**Case number / citation:** Writ-A No. 28337 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2015-03-12 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1978-01-01 (1978)
**Place:** Uttar Pradesh; police station or unit: Civil Police, U.P. Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rule 29, U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956; U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Civil Police, U.P. Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Allahabad High Court (single Judge, 12 March 2015) dismissed the writ petition of Head Constable \[name withheld\] of the Civil Police and sustained his dismissal dated 16 October 2008 for contracting a second marriage in 1978 during the subsistence of his 1965 first marriage, without the permission required by Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956. The Court noted both wives had deposed before the enquiry officer and the misconduct surfaced on the first wife's complaint of ill-treatment. The Court held that a member of the police force is charged with upholding the law and standards of civil society, and the punishment did not shock its conscience. The appellate (30 January 2009) and revisional (26 December 2009) affirmations were left undisturbed, with no compensation ordered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A member of the police force is charged with the duty of maintaining the law, upholding the standards of a civil society. The punishment, viewed in light of the above facts, does not shock the conscience of this Court warranting substitution of the choice made by the administrator.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/353124/ram-pratap-singh-vs-state-of-up-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Civil Police Head Constable v. State of U.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-03-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ-A No. 28337 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/353124/ram-pratap-singh-vs-state-of-up-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writ; head constable's dismissal for bigamy without permission sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0024)

## U.P. Police Constable v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (CW-2015-0030)

**Record:** CW-2015-0030 (compiler id CWC-0965); case GAP3-6-005
**Title:** U.P. Police Constable v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Rajes Kumar; S.B. Singh
**Case number / citation:** Special Appeal No. 1905 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2015-07-21 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Uttar Pradesh; police station or unit: U.P. Police (Police Department); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Rule 8(2)(a), U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991; Constitution Art. 311(2) second proviso cl. (a)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, U.P. Police (Police Department) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, 21 July 2015) dismissed Special Appeal No. 1905 of 2010 and sustained the dismissal dated 7 September 2002 of police Constable under Rule 8(2)(a) of the 1991 Rules, imposed on the ground of conduct leading to his trial-court conviction for murder and life sentence. The Court recorded that the appellant's writ petition (No. 70001 of 2009) had already been dismissed by the single Judge on 20 July 2010 following S. Nagoor Meera (AIR 1995 SC 1364). The Court held there was no substance in the plea that a stay of sentence in the pending criminal appeal entitled him to reinstatement, since the conduct underlying the conviction was not stayed. The special appeal accordingly failed and was dismissed, with no compensation ordered; this judgment does not itself adjudicate the murder charge.

> A bare perusal of proviso of Rule 8 makes it clear that the Police personnel can be dismissed or removed on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on criminal charges even without any disciplinary proceeding being contemplated. Therefore, exercise of power dismissing the appellant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on criminal charges cannot be said to be illegal.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/354455/mahendra-kumar-gaud-appellant-hash-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** U.P. Police Constable v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-07-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Special Appeal No. 1905 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/354455/mahendra-kumar-gaud-appellant-hash-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Special Appeal dismissed; constable's dismissal after murder conviction (Rule 8(2)(a)) sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0030)

## Doharighat Man & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Ors. (CW-2015-0009)

**Record:** CW-2015-0009 (compiler id CWC-0398); case UTTARP-001
**Title:** Doharighat Man & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Ors.
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: V.K. Shukla; Arvind Kumar Mishra
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11158 of 2015
**Judgment:** 2015-09-21 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2015-04-09 (2015)
**Place:** Mau, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Doharighat; police station or unit: Doharighat Police Station, Mau; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Police Station Doharighat, District Mau (7 in record)
**Victims:** Doharighat man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court records the following account. A Doharighat man, a young ITBP constable aspirant who had cleared his physical test, was taken to Doharighat police station on 9 April 2015 for interrogation and detained there until 16 April 2015, during which he was subjected to brutal third-degree torture including electric shocks, severe beatings and insertion of aluminium wire through his mouth. The Court accepted medical evidence including an X-ray showing the wire and photographs of his injuries, rejecting the State's denial. It held the petitioner had suffered custodial violence at the hands of the police, awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation payable by the State within two months for his ruined career and immense suffering, and directed the SP, Mau to register an FIR against the erring incumbents with investigation by an officer not below Circle Officer rank under his supervision. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Awarding of compensation is demand of the situation, looking to the agony that a young man has to undergo, and the fact that his career to join I.T.B.P. has been withered away. Treatment meted to petitioner is purely inhuman, that has inflicted immense mental pain leading to sense of insecurity and helplessness in him. In this background, we proceed to award compensation of Rs.5 lacs to petitioner no.1 to be paid by the State Government within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102741423/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/allahabad-hc-awards-5-lakh-compensation-to-a-youth-who-complained-of-brutal-police-torture); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5811a4ade691cb26fc4d96fe)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Doharighat Man & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-09-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11158 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102741423/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/allahabad-hc-awards-5-lakh-compensation-to-a-youth-who-complained-of-brutal-police-torture', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5811a4ade691cb26fc4d96fe', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Allahabad HC awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation for 7-day illegal detention and brutal custodial torture, directing FIR against erring personnel.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2015-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0009)

## Misrikh Police Constable, Civil Police and others v. State of U.P. and Others with \[name withheld\] v. State of U.P. and Others (CW-2015-0013)

**Record:** CW-2015-0013 (compiler id CWC-0571); case NORTH-001
**Title:** Misrikh Police Constable, Civil Police and others v. State of U.P. and Others with \[name withheld\] v. State of U.P. and Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; bench: Lucknow; judges: Devendra Kumar Arora
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition Nos. 53 (S/S) and 56 (S/S) of 2010
**Judgment:** 2015-12-23 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1981-02-10 (1981)
**Place:** Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Misrikh; police station or unit: Police Station Misrikh, Sitapur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 147; IPC 148; IPC 149; IPC 218; IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Civil Police, Police Station Misrikh, Sitapur; Constable, Civil Police, Police Station Misrikh, Sitapur; Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, Police Station Misrikh, Sitapur (3 in record)
**Victims:** Misrikh man; Misrikh man; Misrikh resident (3 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dismissed the writ petitions of two constables and a sub-inspector of Police Station Misrikh, Sitapur, upholding their dismissal from service under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) read with Rule 8(2)(a) of the U.P. Police Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991. The dismissals rested on their conviction and life sentences by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Sitapur on 7 August 2008 with eleven other police officers for the 10 February 1981 Sarsai encounter in which a Misrikh man, a Misrikh man and a Misrikh resident were killed, which the Court described as an alleged fake encounter and murder by the police party. The Court held a Section 302 convict should not be reinstated till absolved in appeal and that pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 1853 of 2008 does not bar dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> A person convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code should not be reinstated in service till he is absolved in appeal.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71378871/); [allahabadhighcourt.in](https://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ILR/ilr-2015/Dec2015.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Misrikh Police Constable, Civil Police and others v. State of U.P. and Others with \[name withheld\] v. State of U.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-12-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Petition Nos. 53 (S/S) and 56 (S/S) of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71378871/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ILR/ilr-2015/Dec2015.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Allahabad HC (Lucknow) upheld dismissal of 3 Misrikh policemen convicted of murder in 1981 Sarsai fake encounter.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0013)

## Uttar Pradesh Woman v. State of U.P. and Others (CW-2016-0019)

**Record:** CW-2016-0019 (compiler id CWC-0963); case GAP3-6-003
**Title:** Uttar Pradesh Woman v. State of U.P. and Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; Yashwant Varma
**Case number / citation:** Special Appeal No. 200 of 2016
**Judgment:** 2016-03-09 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-07-23 (2009)
**Place:** Uttar Pradesh; police station or unit: U.P. Police (bank security duty); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, U.P. Police (bank security duty, Varanasi) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench led by the Chief Justice, 9 March 2016) dismissed Special Appeal No. 200 of 2016 and sustained the termination dated 7 May 2010 of a U.P. Police constable found in a state of intoxication while on security duty near bank premises on 23 July 2009. The Court noted the constable was medically examined the same day, suspended the next day, and subjected to a regular departmental enquiry with opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The Court held the medical report and corroborating witness statements provided sufficient material to establish the charge, rejecting the plea that intoxication could only be proved by blood and urine examination. The appellate (21 August 2010), revisional (4 November 2010) and single-judge (2 February 2016) affirmations were left undisturbed, with no compensation ordered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In our opinion, bearing in mind the medical report as well as the statement of witnesses who were examined in the course of the disciplinary proceedings, there existed on record sufficient material to establish the charge levelled against the appellant.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/357327/smt-sumitra-devi-vs-state-of-up/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Uttar Pradesh Woman v. State of U.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['officers', 'sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-03-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Special Appeal No. 200 of 2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/357327/smt-sumitra-devi-vs-state-of-up/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Special Appeal dismissed; constable's termination for on-duty intoxication sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0019)

## Civil Police Constable v. State of U.P. and Others (CW-2016-0026)

**Record:** CW-2016-0026 (compiler id CWC-0962); case GAP3-6-002
**Title:** Civil Police Constable v. State of U.P. and Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Tarun Agarwala; Prabhat Chandra Tripathi
**Case number / citation:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15815 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2016-04-28 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1998-12-30 (1998)
**Place:** Mathura, Uttar Pradesh; police station or unit: Police Station Refinery, District Mathura; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 Rule 4(1)(a)(i)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Civil Police, U.P. Police, Police Station Refinery, Mathura (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, 28 April 2016) dismissed the writ petition of dismissed Civil Police Constable of Police Station Refinery, Mathura, and sustained his dismissal dated 28 February 2000 for unauthorised absence from 30 December 1998 to 31 March 1999 while assigned summons-service duty. The Court found his winter-illness alibi and belated medical certificate unconvincing, noting a record of 13 absences totalling 578 days, 15 minor penalties, three censures and adverse entries. The Court held his callous and defiant conduct rendered him unsuitable for a disciplined force and that dismissal would set an example. The approval (15 March 2001), revision rejection (30 April 2002) and Tribunal dismissal of the claim petition (12 December 2013) were left undisturbed, with no compensation ordered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This callous and defiant approach of the petitioner is totally unsuitable in the police force. Discipline and adherence to the obedience is of paramount importance in a disciplined force like Uttar Pradesh Police.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/356535/pandhari-saroj-vs-state-of-up-and-others/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Civil Police Constable v. State of U.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-04-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15815 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/356535/pandhari-saroj-vs-state-of-up-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writ; constable's dismissal for repeated unauthorised absence sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0026)

## I. S. vs State Of U.P. & 7 Others (CW-2017-0002)

**Record:** CW-2017-0002 (compiler id CWC-0853); case UTTARP-003; aliases: CWC-0400
**Title:** I. S. vs State Of U.P. & 7 Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Ramesh Sinha; Rekha Dikshit
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11422 of 2013 / (2017) 99 ACrC 115
**Judgment:** 2017-01-20 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-12-27 (2012)
**Place:** Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Mughalsarai; police station or unit: PS Kotwali Mughalsarai; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Circle Officer (C.O. Sadar), PS Kotwali Mughalsarai; Constable, PS Kotwali Mughalsarai; Constable, PS Kotwali Mughalsarai; Constable, PS Kotwali Mughalsarai; Constable, PS Kotwali Mughalsarai (5 in record)
**Victims:** Mughalsarai man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Allahabad High Court held that Class-XII student a man was forcibly picked up from his family hotel-cum-photostat shop at Mughalsarai on 27 December 2012 by four constables acting at the behest of respondent \[name withheld\], illegally confined in the Kotwali lock-up till 29 December, handcuffed, tortured and severely beaten, then falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 412 of 2012. The Court rejected the police version and an ADJ inquiry that minimised the injuries, holding the confinement, handcuffing and torture showed police high-handedness against a school-going boy. It held the State had failed in its duty to protect innocents from police atrocities. It partly allowed the petition and awarded Rs 2 lakh exemplary compensation payable by the State within one month. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The illegal confinement, handcuffing and torture of the petitioner in police lock-up by respondent nos. 4 to 8 shows the highhandedness of the police personnel, hence the said act and conduct of said respondents is not appreciable as by the said act, they have malign the reputation of the petitioner, who was a school going boy of tender age as is also evident from his photograph in handcuffing position with other accused of case crime no. 412 of 2012 annexed with the petition as annexure-7 at page-51, in the society by implicating him in a false case the proceedings of which has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing application under section 482 Cr.P.C. in which proceedings have been stayed by this Court and the matter is pending before this Court, hence we deemed it proper in the interest of justice that petitioner, who is a student of class-XII is entitled for an exemplary compensation.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/355585/inderpreet-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-up-respondent/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47936008/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/allahabad-hc-orders-state-pay-compensation-custodial-torture)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** I. S. vs State Of U.P. & 7 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-01-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2017) 99 ACrC 115', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/355585/inderpreet-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-up-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47936008/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/allahabad-hc-orders-state-pay-compensation-custodial-torture', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Student illegally confined, handcuffed and tortured 27-29 Dec 2012; Rs 2 lakh exemplary compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2017-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0002)

## U.P. Police Constable v. State of U.P. and Others (CW-2017-0016)

**Record:** CW-2017-0016 (compiler id CWC-0961); case GAP3-6-001
**Title:** U.P. Police Constable v. State of U.P. and Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Dilip Gupta; Siddhartha Varma
**Case number / citation:** Writ-A No. 11464 of 2010
**Judgment:** 2017-03-02 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-05-08 (1992)
**Place:** Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Saharanpur; police station or unit: U.P. Police, Saharanpur (relieved for Refresher Course, Police Training Centre Moradabad); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** U.P. Police Regulations, 1861 (disciplinary inquiry)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, U.P. Police, Saharanpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, 2 March 2017) dismissed the writ petition of U.P. Police Constable, posted at Saharanpur, who had been dismissed from service on 28 January 1994 after remaining unauthorisedly absent for 503 days from 8 May 1992 instead of joining a Refresher Course at the Police Training Centre, Moradabad. The Court noted the enquiry officer had disbelieved his private medical reports since he had not been examined at a district hospital as the regulations required. The Court held there was no substance in the plea that dismissal was disproportionate to the charge of such prolonged absence. The appellate rejection (27 July 1994) and the U.P. Public Services Tribunal's dismissal of Claim Petition No. 1287 of 1995 (1 December 2009) were left undisturbed, and no compensation was ordered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We, therefore, do not find any substance in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate to the charge levelled against him.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/356048/jagpal-singh-rathi-vs-uttar-pradesh-state-public-service-tri/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25
**display title redacted:** U.P. Police Constable v. State of U.P. and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-03-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ-A No. 11464 of 2010', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/356048/jagpal-singh-rathi-vs-uttar-pradesh-state-public-service-tri/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed writ; constable's dismissal for 503 days' unauthorised absence sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2017-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0016)

## State of U.P. v. Kunwargaon Police Sub-Inspector / Station House Officer & Ors. (CW-2017-0014)

**Record:** CW-2017-0014 (compiler id CWC-0395); case UTTARP-008
**Title:** State of U.P. v. Kunwargaon Police Sub-Inspector / Station House Officer & Ors.
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Arun Tandon; Rajul Bhargava
**Case number / citation:** Government Appeal No. 3448 of 2002
**Judgment:** 2017-12-18 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-09-12 (1994)
**Place:** Budaun, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Kunwargaon; police station or unit: Kunwargaon Police Station, Budaun; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 343; IPC 220
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector / Station House Officer, PS Kunwargaon, Budaun (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kunwargaon man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court records the following account. A Kunwargaon man was picked up from his field on 5 September 1994 by Station House Officer's party and detained in the Kunwargaon police lock-up for nearly a week without being challaned in any case, during which he was regularly beaten. On 12 September 1994 kerosene was poured on him and he was set ablaze inside the police station, dying of extensive burn injuries. Independent shopkeepers opposite the station and a co-detenu supported the illegal detention and beating, and the deceased told his cousin that the SO had burnt him. The Special Judge (PC Act) acquitted all eight policemen in 2002, but the High Court held the trial court had committed a grave miscarriage of justice, reversed the SHO's acquittal and convicted him under Sections 302, 343 and 220 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment with fines, while affirming the acquittal of the seven constables. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This State appeal is allowed against respondent no.1-\[name withheld\] and he is held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302, 343, 220 IPC.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117064808/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e97453d4653d048ca2b5bd0)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 50
**display title redacted:** State of U.P. v. Kunwargaon Police Sub-Inspector / Station House Officer & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-12-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Government Appeal No. 3448 of 2002', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117064808/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e97453d4653d048ca2b5bd0', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Allahabad HC reversed acquittal, convicting SHO of murder (s.302) with life imprisonment for custodial burning death.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2017-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0014)

## Hashimpura, Meerut Man & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (CW-2018-0016)

**Record:** CW-2018-0016 (compiler id CWC-0510); case SWDISPRO-001
**Title:** Hashimpura, Meerut Man & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S. Muralidhar; Vinod Goel
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. 574/2015 and connected appeals / 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12153
**Judgment:** 2018-10-31 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-05-22 (1987)
**Place:** Meerut, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Hashimpura, Meerut; police station or unit: Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 364; IPC 120B; IPC 201; IPC 307
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary; Police personnel, Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary (16 in record)
**Victims:** Hashimpura, Meerut man (42 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Delhi High Court reversed the 2015 Tis Hazari acquittals and convicted 16 UP Provincial Armed Constabulary personnel of murder and conspiracy for the Hashimpura massacre of 22 May 1987, sentencing each to life imprisonment. The Court found that about 42 Muslim men rounded up at Hashimpura, Meerut, during communal riots were trucked to the Gangnahar canal, shot dead, and their bodies dumped. It termed the massacre a targeted killing of unarmed and defenceless people by the police, relying on survivor testimony and PAC records after the case was transferred to Delhi. Appeals against the convictions are pending before the Supreme Court, which has granted bail to some convicts.

> The evidence also clearly establishes the prior meeting of minds of the accused and their careful planning in executing the killings of the victims. Their guilt for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B IPC, and pursuant thereto committing the offence of abduction punishable under Section 364 IPC and murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and thereafter destroying the evidence of such crime thus committing the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC thus stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.

**Sources (5):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113980221/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/breaking-delhi-hc-reverses-acquittal-of-16-policemen-in-hashimpura-massacre-case-sentences-all-to-life-imprisonment); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/11/02/hashimpura-tragedy-16-pac-personnel-accused-of-targeted-killings-convicted-in-an-attempt-to-avert-systematic-failure-and-misscariage-of-justice-del-hc/); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/supreme-court-grants-bail-to-eight-convicts-in-the-1987-hashimpura-massacre-case-1560213); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/hashimpura-massacre-16-cops-convicted-targeted-killings-muslims)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 72
**display title redacted:** Hashimpura, Meerut Man & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Official source added: Delhi High Court judgment (Indian Kanoon), matched on parties, court, 31 October 2018 decision date, Crl.A. 574/2015 and the life sentences of the 16 accused.'}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': "Title corrected: the appellants were survivors and victims' families appealing the 2015 acquittals, not police personnel; their names are withheld."}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-10-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2018 SCC OnLine Del 12153', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2024-12-06', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 6 December 2024, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-grants-bail-to-up-police-officers-convicted-for-hashimpura-massacre-277533', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2024-12-06', 'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-grants-bail-to-up-police-officers-convicted-for-hashimpura-massacre-277533', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/breaking-delhi-hc-reverses-acquittal-of-16-policemen-in-hashimpura-massacre-case-sentences-all-to-life-imprisonment', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/11/02/hashimpura-tragedy-16-pac-personnel-accused-of-targeted-killings-convicted-in-an-attempt-to-avert-systematic-failure-and-misscariage-of-justice-del-hc/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/supreme-court-grants-bail-to-eight-convicts-in-the-1987-hashimpura-massacre-case-1560213', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/hashimpura-massacre-16-cops-convicted-targeted-killings-muslims', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**title party:** victim
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC reversed 2015 acquittals; convicted 16 PAC men to life; recategorised extrajudicial killing.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2018-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0016)

## Meerut Police PAC personnel & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.; Meerut Man & Anr. v. State of UP (CW-2018-0029)

**Record:** CW-2018-0029 (compiler id CWC-0939); case SWOTHERM-004
**Title:** Meerut Police PAC personnel & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.; Meerut Man & Anr. v. State of UP
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S. Muralidhar; Vinod Goel
**Case number / citation:** Crl.A. Nos. 574, 629 & 884/2015 / 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12153
**Judgment:** 2018-10-31 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1987-05-22 (1987)
**Place:** Meerut, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Meerut; police station or unit: C-Company, 41st Battalion, UP PAC; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 302; IPC 364; IPC 307; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** PAC personnel, C-Company, 41st Battalion, UP PAC (16 in record)
**Victims:** Meerut man; Meerut man (42 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The Delhi High Court reversed the Tis Hazari acquittal and convicted 16 UP PAC men for the Hashimpura massacre of 22 May 1987, when C-Company jawans rounded up 42-45 Muslim men of Meerut, shot about 38 in batches at Gang nahar and Hindon canal and dumped the bodies in the water. Charge-sheeted only in 1996 with trial transferred to Delhi, all had been acquitted in 2015 for want of identification; on appeal with NHRC-intervenor additional evidence, the High Court held it targeted killing of unarmed defenceless persons. Each was sentenced to life (remainder of natural life) under Section 302/120B plus concurrent terms for conspiracy, kidnapping, attempt to murder and destruction of evidence, and ordered to surrender by 22 November 2018. State corrected to Uttar Pradesh (incident site; trial in Delhi). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We hold that this was targeted killing by armed forces of the unarmed, innocent and defenceless members of a particular community.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113980221/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/breaking-delhi-hc-reverses-acquittal-of-16-policemen-in-hashimpura-massacre-case-sentences-all-to-life-imprisonment)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 1.8
**display title redacted:** Meerut Police PAC personnel & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.; Meerut Man & Anr. v. State of UP
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-10-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2018 SCC OnLine Del 12153', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113980221/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/breaking-delhi-hc-reverses-acquittal-of-16-policemen-in-hashimpura-massacre-case-sentences-all-to-life-imprisonment', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC reversed acquittal; convicted 16 PAC men for Hashimpura massacre (life).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2018-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0029)

## Loni Man v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others (CW-2019-0021)

**Record:** CW-2019-0021 (compiler id CWC-0743); case SWILLEGA-068
**Title:** Loni Man v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S. Muralidhar; Talwant Singh
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(Crl.) No. 2189 of 2018
**Judgment:** 2019-12-12 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2018-07-03 (2018)
**Place:** Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Loni; police station or unit: PS Loni, Ghaziabad (UP Police); PS Vasant Kunj (North), Delhi Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Loni, Ghaziabad (UP Police); Head Constable, PS Vasant Kunj (North), Delhi Police; Lady Constable, PS Loni, Ghaziabad (UP Police); Unknown, PS Loni, Ghaziabad (UP Police); Inspector, PS Vasant Kunj (North), Delhi Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Loni man; Loni woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Delhi High Court (Justices S. Muralidhar and Talwant Singh) awarded Rs 50,000 each to newly-married a Loni man and a Loni woman for their illegal detention by UP police in July 2018. A Court-appointed Committee prima facie established that SI (PS Loni) took a Loni woman from JNU to her parents without her consent and kept a Loni man in the PS Loni lockup from 3 July till the night of 5 July 2018 without producing him before any court, while Delhi Police (PS Vasant Kunj North) failed to intervene or record the visit. The Court held the arrest power grossly misused in violation of s.41B CrPC safeguards, ordered compensation from Uttar Pradesh with a DGP apology, and directed disciplinary action plus compliance reports. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the facts and circumstances, the Court directs that compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to both a Loni man and a Loni woman shall be paid by the State of Uttar Pradesh for their illegal detention by the UP police which stands established prima facie by the report of the Committee.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167825786/); Committee report of Justice S.P. Garg (retd.) and Kanwaljeet Deol, IPS (retd.); [images.assettype.com](https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2020-01/6bd89cfb-be3a-4b46-bf77-6b86d476d5d5/Sandeep_Kumar_v_State__NCT__of_Delhi___Delhi_High_Court_Judgment.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** Loni Man v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-12-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P.(Crl.) No. 2189 of 2018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167825786/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'Committee report of Justice S.P. Garg (retd.) and Kanwaljeet Deol, IPS (retd.)', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2020-01/6bd89cfb-be3a-4b46-bf77-6b86d476d5d5/Sandeep_Kumar_v_State__NCT__of_Delhi___Delhi_High_Court_Judgment.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Delhi HC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon + B&B PDF; Rs 50,000 each to couple for UP police illegal detention matches.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2019-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0021)

## Rajendra Giri & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CW-2020-0007)

**Record:** CW-2020-0007 (compiler id CWC-0396); case SWFAKEEN-018
**Title:** Rajendra Giri & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Sunita Agarwal; Dinesh Pathak
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 1575, 1594 and 1345 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2020-10-22 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-10-31 (1992)
**Place:** Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Barhapur; police station or unit: PS Barhapur (Baradhpur), Bijnor; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 364; IPC 302; IPC 218; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Dhirendra Singh Yadav (Station House Officer); Rajendra Giri; Shambhu Datt Sharma; Shamim Khan; Jaipal Singh; Raj Kumar; Brij Bhusan Sharma; Kalwa Singh; Lajwant Singh; Dinesh Chandra; Balbir Singh; Ram Niwas; Amarjeet Singh; Kiranpal Singh; Jagat Singh; Rashi Pal Singh; Police personnel, PS Baradhpur, Bijnor (16 in record)
**Victims:** Barhapur man, age 25 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court records the following account. A Barhapur man, a sewadar at Gurudwara Rakabganj in Delhi, was abducted from outside the gurudwara on 30 October 1992 by a U.P. police party led by SHO Dhirendra Singh Yadav and shot dead the next morning in Kanshiwala jungle, Bijnor, in what police claimed was an encounter with a Sikh militant during combing operations. False cases were registered at PS Barhapur and an AK-56 rifle planted beside the body. On a relative's writ petition the Supreme Court entrusted investigation to the CBI, which charge-sheeted the police party, and the Special CBI Court at Ghaziabad convicted 17 policemen and sentenced them to life imprisonment in March 2012. The High Court dismissed all appeals, holding the extra-judicial killing, abduction and fabrication of records proved beyond reasonable doubt and the self-defence encounter claim palpably false, cancelling Jaipal Singh's bail and taking him into custody.

> The charges framed against them have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. As the sentence awarded to the appellants is minimum, the same requires no interference. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157781726/); [elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in](https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloadOriginalHCJudgmentDocument.do?translatedJudgmentID=6663)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 67
**display title redacted:** Rajendra Giri & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 1575, 1594 and 1345 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2020-10-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 1575, 1594 and 1345 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157781726/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloadOriginalHCJudgmentDocument.do?translatedJudgmentID=6663', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Allahabad HC dismissed appeals of 17 policemen, upholding life sentences for abduction and fake-encounter killing of a Barhapur man
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2020-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0007)

## Rohania Man and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others (CW-2021-0010)

**Record:** CW-2021-0010 (compiler id CWC-0744); case GAP3-002
**Title:** Rohania Man and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Surya Prakash Kesarwani; Shamim Ahmed
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16386 of 2020 / AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 1297
**Judgment:** 2021-06-11 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2020-10-08 (2020)
**Place:** Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Rohania; police station or unit: Police Station Rohania, Varanasi; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 151; CrPC 107; CrPC 116
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Rohania, Varanasi (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rohania man; Rohania man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court records the following account. Police arrested the two petitioners under Section 151 Cr.P.C. on 8 October 2020 over an ancestral land dispute, and a Sub-Inspector of Rohania police station sent a printed-form challani report under Sections 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. with only names and the words 'land dispute' filled in. The SDM registered the case without recording satisfaction or issuing a show-cause order and kept the petitioners detained from 12 to 21 October 2020 even after they submitted personal bonds. The Division Bench held the police authorities were arbitrarily and illegally submitting such challani reports and that the SDM acted in clear breach of Sections 107, 111 and 116 Cr.P.C. and Article 21. It recorded payment of Rs. 25,000 compensation to each petitioner under the State policy of 23 March 2021 and issued statewide compliance directions. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Non release of the petitioners by the respondent no.3 even after submission of personal bond/bail bond and other papers, is a clear breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174699131/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/allahabad-high-courtup-govt-arbitrary-illegal-submission-of-challan-reports-under-sections-107116-crpc-169680)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Rohania Man and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-06-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 1297', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174699131/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/allahabad-high-courtup-govt-arbitrary-illegal-submission-of-challan-reports-under-sections-107116-crpc-169680', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment verified; police challan practice held arbitrary and illegal, Rs. 25,000 paid to each of 2 detenus.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2021-0010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0010)

## In Re v. \[name withheld\] (CW-2022-0017)

**Record:** CW-2022-0017 (compiler id CWC-0655); case SWOTHERM-019
**Title:** In Re v. \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Suneet Kumar; Syed Waiz Mian
**Case number / citation:** Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 5 of 2022 / 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 382
**Judgment:** 2022-08-18 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated (2022)
**Place:** Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Kanth; police station or unit: Kanth Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 353; IPC 504; IPC 506
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating Officer (In-charge), Kanth Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kanth man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 0.038 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

Investigating Officer, In-charge of Kanth Police Station (Shahjahanpur), served a Section 41-A CrPC notice in a case under Sections 353/504/506 IPC but wilfully recorded in the general diary that the accused declined its terms, arresting him in deliberate circumvention of the Arnesh Kumar mandate; the Magistrate refused remand and made a contempt reference. The Division Bench rejected his qualified apology and held him guilty of contempt for imposing himself over and above the law. He was sentenced to 14 days' simple imprisonment plus Rs 1,000 fine, kept in abeyance for 60 days to prefer a Section 19 appeal.

> The misleading entry in the GD was made willfully and deliberately with sole purpose to bypass the mandate in Arnesh Kumar (supra), in order to arrest the accused. The contemnor, in the circumstances, has circumvent the mandate which was binding upon him.

**Sources (3):** [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/sites/default/files/2022-08/Arnesh%20Kumar%20Judgment.pdf); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/allahabad-high-court-sentences-police-officer-14-day-imprisonment-violating-arnesh-kumar-guidelines); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/08/24/allahabad-high-court-grants-14-days-imprisonment-to-investigating-officer-for-violating-arnesh-kumar-guidelines-in-contempt/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** In Re v. \[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': "Official source added: Allahabad High Court order in Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 5 of 2022 dated 18.8.2022 (copy hosted by LawBeat): Kanth Police Station investigating officer sentenced to 14 days' simple imprisonment and Rs 1,000 fine, sentence kept in abeyance 60 days."}
**followup status:** never_checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-08-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2022 LiveLaw (AB) 382', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/sites/default/files/2022-08/Arnesh Kumar Judgment.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/allahabad-high-court-sentences-police-officer-14-day-imprisonment-violating-arnesh-kumar-guidelines', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/08/24/allahabad-high-court-grants-14-days-imprisonment-to-investigating-officer-for-violating-arnesh-kumar-guidelines-in-contempt/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC contempt conviction verified via judgment PDF text and 3+ reports; 14 days SI + fine for bypassing Arnesh Kumar.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2022-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0017)

## U.P. Police Constable vs State of U.P. (CW-2022-0036)

**Record:** CW-2022-0036 (compiler id CWC-0966); case GAP3-8-001
**Title:** U.P. Police Constable vs State of U.P.
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker; Ajai Tyagi
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 4666 of 2014
**Judgment:** 2022-12-22 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2008-01-02 (2008)
**Place:** Hamirpur, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Chikasi; police station or unit: Police Station Chikasi, District Hamirpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302 (trial court; converted to s.304 Part I on appeal); IPC 323; IPC 304 Part I
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, U.P. Police, Police Station Chikasi, Hamirpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chikasi woman; Chikasi man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 10.58 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, 22 December 2022) partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 4666 of 2014 but sustained the guilt of U.P. Police Constable of Police Station Chikasi, Hamirpur, who on 2 January 2008 abused and beat fellow constable with a rifle butt at the station gate and then fired his government rifle at the constable's mother \[name withheld\] when she intervened; she died of the gunshot injury after giving a dying declaration. The Court held the killing was homicidal but unpremeditated, a single shot in the spur of the moment, converting the trial court's Section 302 IPC life sentence (Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2009, decided 27 November 2014) to Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellant was sentenced to the period already undergone (10 years 7 months with remission) with a fine of Rs.5,000 (three months' simple imprisonment in default). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On overall scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of this case coupled with dying declaration and other evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that offence would be punishable under Section 304 (Part I) because it appears that the death of the deceased was not premeditated and it is a case of single gun shot. This case falls within the purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95858626/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** U.P. Police Constable vs State of U.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 4666 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2022-12-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 4666 of 2014', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95858626/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC sustained guilt of police constable; 302 converted to 304 Part I, sentence cut to time undergone.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0036)

## State of U.P. v. Mukesh Kumar (CW-2023-0013)

**Record:** CW-2023-0013 (compiler id CWC-0394); case UTTARP-007
**Title:** State of U.P. v. Mukesh Kumar
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Dinesh Kumar Singh
**Case number / citation:** Government Appeal No. 4585 of 2003
**Judgment:** 2023-05-01 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-09-07 (2000)
**Place:** Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Ghaziabad; police station or unit: Chowki Maharajpur, PS Link Road, Ghaziabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Mukesh Kumar (Head Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ghaziabad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court records the following account. Head Constable Mukesh Kumar of Maharajpur Outpost under Link Road Police Station in Ghaziabad demanded monthly extortion bribes of Rs 500 from each three-wheeler tempo owner operating between Maharajpur and Sahibabad Mandi under threat of stopping their vehicles. Complainant \[name withheld\] approached the Vigilance Department at Meerut, and following an inquiry, an anti-corruption trap was executed on 7 September 2000. The respondent was caught red-handed inside his room at the outpost accepting Rs 7,000 in tainted currency collected from fourteen vehicle owners along with a written list, and chemical tests on his hands and pocket yielded positive results. Although the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Meerut, acquitted the respondent in May 2003 on unfounded allegations of enmity, the Allahabad High Court reversed the acquittal, found the demand, acceptance, and recovery conclusively established, and convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 3,000. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Considering the testimony of the witnesses including the complainant, independent witnesses and the Inspectors, I am of the view the the accused-respondent was guilty for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is liable to be set aside.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181092484/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** State of U.P. v. Mukesh Kumar
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-05-01', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Government Appeal No. 4585 of 2003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181092484/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Allahabad HC reversed acquittal, convicting Head Constable under ss. 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) PC Act for extorting tempo operators.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-2023-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0013)

## UP Police Sub-Inspector vs State of U.P. and connected appeals (UP Police personnel vs State) (CW-2023-0016)

**Record:** CW-2023-0016 (compiler id CWC-0446); case SWENFORC-001
**Title:** UP Police Sub-Inspector vs State of U.P. and connected appeals (UP Police personnel vs State)
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Mukta Gupta; Anish Dayal
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. 488/2019, 499/2019, 537/2019, 622/2019, 624/2019, 1023/2019, 1025/2019 / 2023:DHC:4293
**Judgment:** 2023-06-26 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-09-01 (2006)
**Place:** Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Noida; police station or unit: PS Sector-39/Sector-20 Noida; SOG Noida; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part I; IPC 365; IPC 220; IPC 167; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, SOG Noida; Sub-Inspector, SOG Noida; Constable, SOG Noida; Constable, UP Police; Constable, UP Police (6 in record)
**Victims:** Noida man, age 26 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 10 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. On 1 September 2006 Noida police in civil dress took 26-year-old a Noida man @ a Noida man from his house without justification to Chowki Nithari in connection with a robbery case; he died in the PS Sector-20 lock-up and police claimed suicide by hanging. The trial, transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court, ended in March 2019 with the conviction of six UP policemen: the Inspector got 3 years RI under Section 365/34 IPC, and two Sub-Inspectors and three constables got 10 years RI under Section 304/34 plus sentences under Sections 220, 365 and 167 IPC, concurrent. The Delhi High Court rejected the suicide theory, held the shirt-noose and GD entries inconclusive or manipulated, and applied the Section 106 Evidence Act presumption on facts within the special knowledge of the police. It dismissed all convict appeals and the complainant's plea for Section 302 enhancement, also upholding the acquittal of SI. Subcategory corrected from enforced_disappearance to custodial_death as the gravamen is death in custody with 10-year s.304 sentences; the s.365 abduction convictions are retained in the sections. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Ld. Trial Court has rightly convicted the said accused for the offences and the appeals by the accused viz. CRL.A. 488/2019, CRL.A. 499/2019, CRL.A. 537/2019, CRL.A. 622/2019 and CRL.A. 624/2019 are, therefore, dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court are upheld;

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142461883/); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/police-responsible-abduction-illegal-detention-death-conviction-police-officers-custodial-death-1482762); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-10-yrs-sentence-of-five-uttar-pradesh-cops-custodial-torture-26-yr-old-231352)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12(a)
**display title redacted:** UP Police Sub-Inspector vs State of U.P. and connected appeals (UP Police personnel vs State)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2023:DHC:4293', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2023-06-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2023:DHC:4293', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142461883/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/police-responsible-abduction-illegal-detention-death-conviction-police-officers-custodial-death-1482762', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-10-yrs-sentence-of-five-uttar-pradesh-cops-custodial-torture-26-yr-old-231352', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Convictions of 6 UP policemen upheld (ss.304/220/365/167); all appeals dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0016)

## Ramkola Man And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others (CW-2024-0009)

**Record:** CW-2024-0009 (compiler id CWC-0403); case UTTARP-006
**Title:** Ramkola Man And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Siddharth; Surendra Singh-I
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6349 of 2024 / 2024:AHC:98816-DB
**Judgment:** 2024-05-30 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-02-09 (2024)
**Place:** Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Ramkola; police station or unit: PS Ramkola; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC s.151; CrPC s.107; CrPC s.116; CrPC s.111
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Ramkola, Kushinagar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ramkola man; Ramkola resident (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 35,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Allahabad High Court held that Sudarshan Yadav and another, challaned by the PS Ramkola Sub-Inspector under Sections 151, 107 and 116 CrPC over a land dispute and jailed by the Deputy District Magistrate Kaptanganj on 10 February 2024, stayed behind bars till 2 March 2024 in violation of the legal provisions, with the State counter affidavit offering no justification. Following its Ramesh Chand Gupta ruling, the Court allowed the writ and quashed the show-cause order and Case No. 4082 of 2024. It ordered the State to pay Rs 25,000 costs plus Rs 10,000 litigation costs within six weeks, with a compliance report to the Registrar. No individual officer was named and no recovery was ordered. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the counter affidavit, no justification has been made as to why the petitioners were kept behind bars and were only released on 02.03.2024 in violation of legal provisions noted above.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6786079/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** Ramkola Man And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-05-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 35,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2024:AHC:98816-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6786079/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** 21-day jail (10.02.2024-02.03.2024) on unsustainable 151/107/116 challan; proceedings quashed; Rs 25k + 10k costs.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0009)

## Union of India & Ors. v. CRPF Constable (General Duty) (CW-2024-0041)

**Record:** CW-2024-0041 (compiler id CWC-1123); case GAP3-135-002
**Title:** Union of India & Ors. v. CRPF Constable (General Duty)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Hima Kohli; Ahsanuddin Amanullah
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 7933 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 25631 of 2019) / 2024 INSC 550; \[2024\] 7 S.C.R. 910
**Judgment:** 2024-07-23 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-11-17 (2011)
**Place:** Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Barnhal; police station or unit: 149 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF); force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (General Duty), 149 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. \[name withheld\] was appointed CRPF Constable (GD) on 17 November 2011 and denied any arrest or pending case in his verification roll, though FIR No. 76 of 2011 at Barnhal, Mainpuri, and two criminal cases were pending against him. The inquiry also found he filed fake SHO reports during verification, and he was terminated on 24 June 2014 (upheld 23 September 2014). The Supreme Court held suppression proved beyond doubt, including concealment of judicial custody and bail, and applied a stringent yardstick for law-enforcement appointments. It allowed the Union's appeal, set aside the Gauhati High Court's reinstatement orders, and restored termination.

> Full sentence: 'The respondent does not deserve any latitude as it has been established beyond doubt that he was all along aware of the FIR registered against him with Barnhal Police Station, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh and the ensuing criminal cases.' (para 26)

**Sources (3):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/union-of-india-v-shishu-pal-shiv-palwatermark-1640206.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165563836/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/stringent-yardsticks-in-law-enforcement-agencies-supreme-court-terminates-crpf-constables-appointment-for-suppressing-criminal-case-264345)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Union of India & Ors. v. CRPF Constable (General Duty)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-07-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2024 INSC 550; \[2024\] 7 S.C.R. 910', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/union-of-india-v-shishu-pal-shiv-palwatermark-1640206.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165563836/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/stringent-yardsticks-in-law-enforcement-agencies-supreme-court-terminates-crpf-constables-appointment-for-suppressing-criminal-case-264345', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified; CRPF constable's termination for suppression of criminal cases restored (disciplinary_upheld).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2024-0041](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0041)

## Lucknow Woman and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others (CW-2024-0045)

**Record:** CW-2024-0045 (compiler id CWC-0940); case GAP2-4-002
**Title:** Lucknow Woman and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; bench: Lucknow; judges: Attau Rahman Masoodi; Subhash Vidyarthi
**Case number / citation:** HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 365 of 2024
**Judgment:** 2024-11-29 (2024, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2024-11-29 (2024)
**Place:** Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Lucknow; police station or unit: Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 363
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Jagdishpura, Agra; SHO, Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow (2 in record)
**Victims:** Lucknow woman; Lucknow youngster, age 2 (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Division Bench, 29-11-2024), convened at 6:30 p.m. on a habeas mentioning, found that investigating officer Sub-Inspector of Police Station Jagdishpura, Agra, took an eight-months-pregnant woman and her two-year-old child from home to Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow, at about 12:15 p.m. merely to record a section 161 statement in a 2021 kidnapping FIR and kept them there until the court intervened. The court found the FIR disclosed no cognizable offence, the officer acted without case diary and without checking age or marital status, and called the detention torture and a clear abuse of authority. It awarded Rs.1,00,000 exemplary cost against the State as compensation payable within ten days, restored the victim to her residence, and directed the Director General of Police to draw proceedings against the investigating officer within three months and report back on 11-12-2024. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The action on the part of the Investigating Officer is no less than torture of a victim whereas every officer is expected to act fairly in the discharge of his duties.

**Sources (3):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/365-of-2024-1672184.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/chandini-singh-v-state-of-up-allahabad-hc-slams-up-police-for-detaining-pregnant-woman-child-1560178); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/allahabad-high-court-slaps-1-lakh-fine-up-police-pregnant-woman-police-station)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** para 8
**display title redacted:** Lucknow Woman and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2024-11-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 365 of 2024', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/365-of-2024-1672184.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/chandini-singh-v-state-of-up-allahabad-hc-slams-up-police-for-detaining-pregnant-woman-child-1560178', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/allahabad-high-court-slaps-1-lakh-fine-up-police-pregnant-woman-police-station', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held 6-hour detention of pregnant woman and child torture; Rs.1 lakh compensation, DGP action ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}; {'age': 2, 'gender': None, 'descriptor': 'a 2-year-old child'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2024-0045](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2024-0045)

## Bahraich Man And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Others (CW-2025-0057)

**Record:** CW-2025-0057 (compiler id CWC-1334); case cop-up-hc-3
**Title:** Bahraich Man And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
**Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; judges: Abdul Moin; Babita Rani
**Case number / citation:** CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9068 of 2025
**Judgment:** 2025-10-30 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-09-18 (2025)
**Place:** Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh; police station or unit: Police Station Matera, District Bahraich; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Section 189 of BNSS, 2023 / Section 169 Cr.P.C.
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Police Station Matera, District Bahraich (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bahraich man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court held that the conversion FIR dated 13.09.2025 was a glaring example of authorities acting to score brownie points. The High Court held that despite the woman's statement that she had gone on her own accord and return of jewellery, the authorities failed to release the petitioner under Section 169 Cr.P.C. / Section 189 BNSS. The High Court quashed the FIR and ordered immediate release if not wanted elsewhere. The High Court imposed exemplary cost of Rs. 75,000 on the State, with Rs. 50,000 to petitioner no.1 and Rs. 25,000 to Legal Aid.

> in order to score brownie points on the basis of the FIR

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189713960/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** false_implication_fabrication
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 7
**display title redacted:** Bahraich Man And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-10-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': 'CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9068 of 2025', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189713960/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** false implication fabrication
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0057](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0057)

## Lucknow Man v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and 2 Others (CW-2026-0042)

**Record:** CW-2026-0042 (compiler id CWC-0941); case GAP2-4-001
**Title:** Lucknow Man v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and 2 Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Arindam Sinha; Satya Veer Singh
**Case number / citation:** WRIT-C No. 26221 of 2024 / 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 56 : 2026:AHC:14504-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-01-20 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2017-04-17 (2017)
**Place:** Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Lucknow; police station or unit: Police Station Cantt, Gorakhpur; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** CrPC 41(1)(ba); CrPC 203; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Station Cantt, Gorakhpur (1 in record)
**Victims:** Lucknow man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, 20-1-2026) awarded Rs.1,00,000 compensation to a Lucknow man for his wrongful arrest on 17-4-2017 by Uttar Pradesh police in a Gorakhpur molestation case and 79 days in custody before bail. The court found the arresting officer had no credible information or reason to believe under section 41(1)(ba) CrPC, made no effort to locate witnesses or verify the spot, and later investigation showed the petitioner was not in Gorakhpur on the offence date, with the case ultimately dropped under section 203 CrPC in July 2022. The court held the arrest was not on procedure established by law and infringed the petitioner \[name withheld\] 21 right through arbitrary action of the arresting personnel. It noted the first investigating officer, Sub-Inspector, had already been punished in a departmental inquiry for negligence and ordered compensation payable within four weeks. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the circumstances, fundamental right of petitioner under article 21 had been infringed by arbitrary and capricious action on part of the arresting police personnel, a public functionary and petitioner was a helpless victim of that act.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw-cnlu.refread.com](https://livelaw-cnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/sunil-kandu-sunil-kumar-gupta-vs-secretary-ministry-of-home-affairs-and-2-others-2026-livelaw-ab-56-allahabad-high-court-653894.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-up-police-credible-information-1-lakh-compensation-wrongful-arrest-521856); [shoneekapoor.com](https://www.shoneekapoor.com/legal-news/false-rape-case-police-arrest-hc)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Lucknow Man v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and 2 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-01-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (AB) 56 : 2026:AHC:14504-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://livelaw-cnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/sunil-kandu-sunil-kumar-gupta-vs-secretary-ministry-of-home-affairs-and-2-others-2026-livelaw-ab-56-allahabad-high-court-653894.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-up-police-credible-information-1-lakh-compensation-wrongful-arrest-521856', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.shoneekapoor.com/legal-news/false-rape-case-police-arrest-hc', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC held wrongful arrest without credible information; Rs.1 lakh compensation for 79-day detention.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0042](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0042)

## Aligarh Resident v. State of U.P. (CW-2026-0012)

**Record:** CW-2026-0012 (compiler id CWC-0619); case SWILLEGA-047
**Title:** Aligarh Resident v. State of U.P.
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6607 of 2026 / 2026:AHC:48326
**Judgment:** 2026-03-10 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-02-23 (2026)
**Place:** Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Aligarh; police station or unit: Quarsi Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** BNS 303(2); BNS 317(2); BNS 317(4)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating Officer, Quarsi Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Aligarh resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court records the following account. An Aligarh resident, in jail since November 2025 in a car-theft case (Case Crime 1108/2025, PS Quarsi, Aligarh), would have been released on bail on 23 February 2026 but for the investigating officer's instructions wrongly showing 12 criminal cases instead of the 5 he had explained, a mistake the ADG (Technical Services) confirmed via CCTNS records. The High Court found there was no malafide but negligence on the IO's part that kept the applicant in jail 15 extra days for no fault of his own. The Court granted bail and directed the State to pay Rs 50,000 compensation within one month, with systemic directions on case-diary access and video-conferencing facilities. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> As it is not in dispute that the applicant has remained in jail for additional 15 days for the reason that incorrect criminal history of 12 cases has been sent by the concerned I.O. in his instructions to learned AGA though the applicant has already explained the criminal history of five cases. Therefore, compensation of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid by the State to the applicant within a period of one month from today.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41540002/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/allahabad-high-court-orders-50k-compensation-for-accused-who-spent-15-extra-days-in-jail-after-police-error); [lawtrend.in](https://lawtrend.in/allahabad-high-court-orders-up-govt-to-pay-₹50000-compensation-over-15-day-bail-delay-caused-by-police-error/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Aligarh Resident v. State of U.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-03-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026:AHC:48326', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41540002/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/allahabad-high-court-orders-50k-compensation-for-accused-who-spent-15-extra-days-in-jail-after-police-error', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawtrend.in/allahabad-high-court-orders-up-govt-to-pay-₹50000-compensation-over-15-day-bail-delay-caused-by-police-error/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment text verified on Indian Kanoon; Rs 50,000 compensation for 15 extra jail days from police error.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0012)

## Asiwan Man (through his son Asiwan Man) vs State of U.P. & Ors. (CW-2026-0019)

**Record:** CW-2026-0019 (compiler id CWC-0634); case NORTH-003
**Title:** Asiwan Man (through his son Asiwan Man) vs State of U.P. & Ors.
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; bench: Lucknow; judges: Abdul Moin; Pramod Kumar Srivastava
**Case number / citation:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 137/2026 / 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 265
**Judgment:** 2026-04-29 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-01-27 (2026)
**Place:** Unnao, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Asiwan; police station or unit: Police Station Asiwan; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, Police Station Asiwan, Unnao (1 in record)
**Victims:** Asiwan man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court records the following account. An Asiwan man was arrested on 27 January 2026 in Case Crime 244/2024 though the arrest memo cited only the case number without specific grounds, and was remanded on 28 January 2026. The court found the arrest violated Article 22(1) under Mihir Rajesh Shah and the remand based on it was also illegal, ordering forthwith release after 3+ months in custody. It imposed Rs 10 lakh exemplary costs on the State payable within 4 weeks, with liberty to recover from responsible officials. On 22 June 2026 the Supreme Court stayed payment of the compensation on the State's quantum-only appeal, when the State informed the court the SHO had been suspended.

> Para 14 (operative, contiguous): 'A writ of habeas corpus is issued declaring the arrest of the petitioner as illegal. The remand order dated 28.1.2026 being consequential to the illegal arrest is also set aside.' Para 15 (contiguous): 'Further, considering the illegal arrest of the petitioner since 27.1.2026 which continues even as of date i.e. 29.4.2026 and his illegal incarceration in jail being of more than three months, the Court is of the view that exemplary costs quantified at Rupees Ten Lakhs are also imposed on the State authorities.'

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/07/manoj-kumar-thru-his-son-mudit-kumar-vs-state-of-up-thru-prin-secy-home-deptt-up-lko-and-4-others-2026-livelaw-ab-265-allahabad-high-court-672450.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-up-govt-10-lakh-compensation-3-month-illegal-detention-533301); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-stays-order-granting-rs-10-lakh-compensation-to-man-illegally-arrested-by-up-police-538590); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-stays-order-awarding-10-lakh-compensation-to-man-held-in-illegal-custody-by-up-police)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Asiwan Man (through his son Asiwan Man) vs State of U.P. & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote', 'court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-04-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (AB) 265', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/07/manoj-kumar-thru-his-son-mudit-kumar-vs-state-of-up-thru-prin-secy-home-deptt-up-lko-and-4-others-2026-livelaw-ab-265-allahabad-high-court-672450.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-up-govt-10-lakh-compensation-3-month-illegal-detention-533301', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-stays-order-granting-rs-10-lakh-compensation-to-man-illegally-arrested-by-up-police-538590', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-stays-order-awarding-10-lakh-compensation-to-man-held-in-illegal-custody-by-up-police', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC finding verified (2026 LiveLaw AB 265); Rs 10 lakh costs for 3-month illegal detention; SC stayed only payment on quantum appeal (22-06-2026), illegality finding stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0019)

## Itwa Man And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others (CW-2026-0023)

**Record:** CW-2026-0023 (compiler id CWC-0402); case UTTARP-005; aliases: CWC-1446
**Title:** Itwa Man And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Siddharth; Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
**Case number / citation:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 451 of 2026 / 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 302
**Judgment:** 2026-05-29 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-04-04 (2026)
**Place:** Siddharthnagar, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Itwa; police station or unit: PS Itwa; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO, PS Itwa, Siddharthnagar; Sub-Inspector, PS Itwa, Siddharthnagar (2 in record)
**Victims:** Itwa man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Allahabad High Court held that an Itwa man was arrested on 4 April 2026 by the SHO and kept in jail till 29 April 2026 despite a coordinate Bench stay of arrest dated 1 April 2026 passed in the presence of the AGA, which counsel personally brought to the SHO notice. The Court found the SHO paid no heed even after the habeas petition, acting mala fide with dereliction of duty and indiscipline in violating a court order. Relying on Rudal Shah and Nilabati Behera, it ordered Rs 5 lakh compensation within one month recoverable from the SHO, directed disciplinary proceedings against him, and ordered the SP Siddharthnagar to file a compliance affidavit. The judgment twice mistypes the district as Gautam Buddh Nagar; PS Itwa, the CJM and the SP are all Siddharthnagar. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, it is absolutely clear that respondent no.3 made no efforts to get the order of the court complied. Therefore, his conduct proves that he deserves to be punishment of dereliction in due discharge of his official duty and also deserves to be monetarily penalized.

**Sources (5):** [s3.courtbook.in](https://s3.courtbook.in/2026/05/anil-soni-corpus-and-another-vs-state-of-up-and-3-others-2026-livelaw-ab-302-allahabad-high-court-677042.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-up-govt-5-lakh-compensation-man-arrest-detain-illegally-despite-stay-order-536263); [courtbook.in](https://courtbook.in/posts/allahabad-high-court-orders-5-lakh-compensation-for-illegal-arrest-despite-stay-order-directs-action-against-sho); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/30/anil-soni-corpus-and-another-vs-state-of-up-and-3-others-2026-livelaw-ab-302-allahabad-high-court-677042.pdf); [lawtrend.in](https://lawtrend.in/unfortunate-trend-allahabad-hc-orders-up-govt-to-pay-5-lakh-for-mans-illegal-arrest-despite-stay-order/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14
**display title redacted:** Itwa Man And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-05-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (AB) 302', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://s3.courtbook.in/2026/05/anil-soni-corpus-and-another-vs-state-of-up-and-3-others-2026-livelaw-ab-302-allahabad-high-court-677042.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-up-govt-5-lakh-compensation-man-arrest-detain-illegally-despite-stay-order-536263', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://courtbook.in/posts/allahabad-high-court-orders-5-lakh-compensation-for-illegal-arrest-despite-stay-order-directs-action-against-sho', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/30/anil-soni-corpus-and-another-vs-state-of-up-and-3-others-2026-livelaw-ab-302-allahabad-high-court-677042.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawtrend.in/unfortunate-trend-allahabad-hc-orders-up-govt-to-pay-5-lakh-for-mans-illegal-arrest-despite-stay-order/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Arrest despite HC stay; 25 days jail; Rs 5 lakh recoverable from SHO + disciplinary proceedings.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0023)

## Handia Man vs The State of U.P. & Ors. (CW-2026-0022)

**Record:** CW-2026-0022 (compiler id CWC-0854); case UTTARP-002; aliases: CWC-0399
**Title:** Handia Man vs The State of U.P. & Ors.
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: J.J. Munir; Sanjiv Kumar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3807 of 2023
**Judgment:** 2026-05-29 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-11-26 (2022)
**Place:** Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Handia; police station or unit: Outpost Baraut, PS Handia, Prayagraj; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** In-charge, Police Outpost, Outpost Baraut, PS Handia, Prayagraj (1 in record)
**Victims:** Handia man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Rewrite: attribute inquiry-report criticism to the petitioner's pleadings (para 5), not to a Court holding; record Dubey's version (personal affidavit 03.12.2025: compromise letter per GD No.23 dated 27.11.2022, denied pressure) and the Court's rejection of it as tacit denial that is no denial (paras 11-12); attribute Rs.20,000 bribe claim to petitioner and note Court expressly declined to go into it (para 14). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In the totality of circumstances, we hold that the petitioner was illegally deprived of his liberty by Dubey, a police officer, in the colour of exercise of authority of the State, and for the aforesaid act, the petitioner must be given monetary recompense.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41914621/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-awards-25k-compensation-24-hour-illegal-detention-537111); [courtbook.in](https://courtbook.in/posts/allahabad-hc-awards-compensation-after-finding-man-illegally-detained-for-24-hours-over-domestic-dispute); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/08/matambar-mishra-vs-the-state-of-up-and-3-others-2026-livelaw-ab-319-allahabad-high-court-678514.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Handia Man vs The State of U.P. & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-05-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3807 of 2023', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41914621/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-awards-25k-compensation-24-hour-illegal-detention-537111', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://courtbook.in/posts/allahabad-hc-awards-compensation-after-finding-man-illegally-detained-for-24-hours-over-domestic-dispute', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/08/matambar-mishra-vs-the-state-of-up-and-3-others-2026-livelaw-ab-319-allahabad-high-court-678514.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Allahabad HC awarded Rs 25,000 compensation plus costs for 24-hour illegal detention, recoverable from outpost in-charge Dubey.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0022)

## Ghaziabad Man and another v. State of U.P. and others (CW-2026-0027)

**Record:** CW-2026-0027 (compiler id CWC-0622); case SWILLEGA-050
**Title:** Ghaziabad Man and another v. State of U.P. and others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Siddharth; Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
**Case number / citation:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 214 of 2026
**Judgment:** 2026-06-08 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-03-22 (2026)
**Place:** Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Ghaziabad; police station or unit: Teelamodh Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** BNSS 170; BNSS 126; BNSS 135
**Officers (gated display forms):** Chowki In-charge, Teelamodh Police Station; Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shalimar Garden, Ghaziabad; Station House Officer, Teelamodh Police Station (3 in record)
**Victims:** Ghaziabad man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 75,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Add the SHO's counter-affidavit version (para 6) and State opposition (para 8); add caveat that operative para 17 dates the detention to March (22.3-25.3.2026) while paras 3-4 record February (22.2-25.2.2026), apparently a typographical slip in the judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Now coming to the facts of this case, it is clear that petitioner no.1 was illegally detained in jail from 22.3.2026 to 25.3.2026 and was released after filing of this petition on oral direction of this Court. Hence he is held entitled to compensation of Rs.75,000/- at the rate Rs.25,000/- per day of illegal detention.

**Sources (3):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/10/habca2142026watermark-1779047.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/allahabad-high-court/chander-pal-singh-v-state-of-up-habeas-corpus-writ-petition-no-214-of-2026-specially-abled-advocate-illegally-detained-for-3-days-1615667); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/cops-magistrates-to-pay-for-illegal-detentions-allahabad-hc-cracks-down-on-preventive-arrest-abuse-537327)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 17
**display title redacted:** Ghaziabad Man and another v. State of U.P. and others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-06-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 75,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 214 of 2026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/10/habca2142026watermark-1779047.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/allahabad-high-court/chander-pal-singh-v-state-of-up-habeas-corpus-writ-petition-no-214-of-2026-specially-abled-advocate-illegally-detained-for-3-days-1615667', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/cops-magistrates-to-pay-for-illegal-detentions-allahabad-hc-cracks-down-on-preventive-arrest-abuse-537327', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment text verified from primary PDF; Rs 75,000 for 3-day illegal preventive detention.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0027)

## Prayagraj Man and another vs State Of U.P. and 4 Others (CW-2026-0026)

**Record:** CW-2026-0026 (compiler id CWC-0875); case UTTARP-004; aliases: CWC-0401
**Title:** Prayagraj Man and another vs State Of U.P. and 4 Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Siddharth; Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
**Case number / citation:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 317 of 2026 / 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 321
**Judgment:** 2026-06-08 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-03-19 (2026)
**Place:** Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Prayagraj; police station or unit: PS Khiri, Commissionerate Prayagraj; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** BNSS s.170; BNSS s.126; BNSS s.135
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bara, Commissionerate Prayagraj; SHO, PS Khiri, Prayagraj; Sub-Inspector, PS Khiri, Prayagraj; Constable, PS Khiri, Prayagraj; Police personnel, PS Khiri, Prayagraj (5 in record)
**Victims:** Prayagraj man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Replace closing boilerplate with the recorded State version: AGA filed a counter affidavit (taken on record 27.4.2026); Commissioner's compliance affidavit averred no person was detained under BNSS 170/126/135 and stated persons refusing personal bonds are sent to judicial custody (para 11). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, it is clear that the provisions of Sections 170, 126, and 135 of the B.N.S.S. were flagrantly violated by the Assistant Commissioner of Police/Special In-charge Magistrate, Commissionerate Prayagraj. If petitioner no. 1 did not furnished the personal bond on 19.03.2026, the next date, i.e., 20.03.2026, should have been fixed to provide him an opportunity to furnish personal bond for keeping the peace and maintaining good behaviour. The Assistant Commissioner of Police fixed the next date after eight days; therefore, petitioner no. 1 was kept in illegal detention for eight days, dehors the provisions of law.

**Sources (5):** [images.assettype.com](https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2026-06-12/f61v5eol/Mansoor_Ahmad___Lallu_and_another_v_State_of_UP_and_4_Others.pdf); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/allahabad-high-court-orders-state-to-pay-2-lakh-to-man-illegally-detained-for-8-days); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/shocking-affairs-in-prayagaraj-police-commissionerate-allahabad-high-court-flags-misuse-of-bnss-preventive-detention-powers-537402); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/allahabad-high-court/mansoor-ahmad-lallu-v-state-of-up-habeas-corpus-writ-petition-no-317-of-2026-2-lakh-compensation-illegal-detention-prayagraj-commissionerate-1615807); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/12/habca3172026watermark-1779171.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Prayagraj Man and another vs State Of U.P. and 4 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-06-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (AB) 321', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2026-06-12/f61v5eol/Mansoor_Ahmad___Lallu_and_another_v_State_of_UP_and_4_Others.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.barandbench.com/news/allahabad-high-court-orders-state-to-pay-2-lakh-to-man-illegally-detained-for-8-days', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/shocking-affairs-in-prayagaraj-police-commissionerate-allahabad-high-court-flags-misuse-of-bnss-preventive-detention-powers-537402', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/allahabad-high-court/mansoor-ahmad-lallu-v-state-of-up-habeas-corpus-writ-petition-no-317-of-2026-2-lakh-compensation-illegal-detention-prayagraj-commissionerate-1615807', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/12/habca3172026watermark-1779171.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** 8-day illegal judicial custody in BNSS preventive proceedings; Rs 2 lakh @25k/day, recoverable from ACP.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0026)

## Bisalpur Police Constable vs State of U.P. (CW-2026-0041)

**Record:** CW-2026-0041 (compiler id CWC-0745); case GAP3-004
**Title:** Bisalpur Police Constable vs State of U.P.
**Court:** Allahabad High Court; judges: Santosh Rai
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 2564 of 1985 / 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 477
**Judgment:** 2026-07-27 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1984-08-21 (1984)
**Place:** Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Bisalpur; police station or unit: Posted at Bareilly; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 307
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Posted at Bareilly; offence at Bisalpur, Pilibhit (1 in record)
**Victims:** Bisalpur man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 4 yrs; Rs 35,000
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

Change closing sentence to record that the appellant's defence of denial and plea of unsoundness of mind were recorded and rejected (paras 17-18). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The conviction of the appellant, \[name withheld\] under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as recorded by the Trial Court in S.T. No. 319 of 1984, is hereby affirmed.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw-cnlu.refread.com](https://livelaw-cnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/2026/07/28/bux-ullah-alias-burey-ali-vs-state-of-up-2026-livelaw-ab-477-allahabad-high-court-689792.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-reduce-jail-term-cop-convict-1984-attempt-murder-victim-35000-compensation-543118)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 25(i)
**display title redacted:** Bisalpur Police Constable vs State of U.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['outcome_type', 'court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Allahabad High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (AB) 477', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2026-07-27', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Allahabad High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '2026 LiveLaw (AB) 477', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://livelaw-cnlu.refread.com/pdf_upload/2026/07/28/bux-ullah-alias-burey-ali-vs-state-of-up-2026-livelaw-ab-477-allahabad-high-court-689792.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-reduce-jail-term-cop-convict-1984-attempt-murder-victim-35000-compensation-543118', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Conviction affirmed with 6-to-4-year reduction verified via LiveLaw report and judgment PDF; personal-motive stabbing by constable.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2026-0041](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0041)

## Agra Woman And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others (CW-2026-0066)

**Record:** CW-2026-0066 (compiler id CWC-1333); case cop-up-hc-2
**Title:** Agra Woman And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
**Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; judges: Sandeep Jain
**Case number / citation:** HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1079 of 2026 / 2026:AHC:165122
**Judgment:** 2026-08-06 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Agra, Uttar Pradesh; police station or unit: Police Station Sadar Bazar / Police Station Cyber Crime, Agra; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Section 87 BNS; U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Police Station Cyber Crime, Agra; Sub-Inspector, Police Station Cyber Crime, Agra (2 in record)
**Victims:** Agra woman; Agra woman (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 25 lakh (Rs 25,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court held that confinement of the two adult women in the parental home against their wishes was unlawful and without legal sanction. The High Court held that the State machinery failed to discharge its constitutional obligations to protect their liberty. The High Court declared both women free to live where they choose and directed police protection and return of documents. The High Court awarded Rs. 25,00,000 compensation to be shared equally, payable by the father and the State, with liberty to recover from erring staff.

> The State machinery failed to discharge its constitutional obligations

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34334003/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 61
**display title redacted:** Agra Woman And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-08-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Allahabad', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2026:AHC:165122', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34334003/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0066](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0066)

## Chandauli Man vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others (CW-2026-0065)

**Record:** CW-2026-0065 (compiler id CWC-1332); case cop-up-hc-1
**Title:** Chandauli Man vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
**Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; judges: Sandeep Jain
**Case number / citation:** CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11697 of 2026 / 2026:AHC:188247
**Judgment:** 2026-09-09 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-05-12 (2025)
**Place:** Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh; police station or unit: P.S. Saiyadraja, District Chandauli; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, P.S. Saiyadraja, District Chandauli (1 in record)
**Victims:** Chandauli man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 4.2 lakh (Rs 4,20,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court held that the police had no power or jurisdiction to seize or confiscate the vehicle in the cow-slaughter case. The High Court held that no permit is required to transport cow and progeny within Uttar Pradesh. The High Court quashed the confiscation order dated 12.01.2026 and the appellate order dated 28.03.2026. The High Court directed return of the vehicle and awarded monthly compensation from seizure plus a lump sum for mental agony and litigation.

> the police has no power or jurisdiction to seize or confiscate the vehicle in question

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188158070/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 13-14
**display title redacted:** Chandauli Man vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Allahabad', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2026:AHC:188247', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188158070/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** compensation_inr is null but judgment awards Rs. 25,000/month from 12.05.2025 till release plus Rs. 20,000 lump sum for mental agony; court_quote para field says 'as reported' but quote appears at para 13-14 of judgment (quoting Kaliya precedent)
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0065](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0065)

## Prayagraj Man (Corpus) And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others (CW-2026-0101)

**Record:** CW-2026-0101 (compiler id CWC-1391)
**Title:** Prayagraj Man (Corpus) And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court (verified as High Court of Judicature at Allahabad); judges: Atul Sreedharan; Divesh Chandra Samant
**Case number / citation:** HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 906 of 2026
**Judgment:** 2026-09-09 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-06-23 (2026)
**Place:** Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh; city town: Prayagraj; police station or unit: P.S. George Town, District Prayagraj; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Article 226 of the Constitution of India (habeas corpus)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, P.S. George Town, Prayagraj; Investigating Officer, P.S. George Town, Prayagraj (2 in record)
**Victims:** Prayagraj man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 40,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court recorded that police of P.S. George Town, Prayagraj picked up a man from his house in Jaunpur on 23.06.2026 to question him in an attempted-murder case against his brother, who was then absconding, and released him only at about 7:00 p.m. on 26.06.2026. The Investigating Officer told the court he went to the house on the SHO's direction. Call records and CCTV footage corroborated the detention; no CCTV footage for 26.06.2026 was produced. The court held the man was in unlawful custody for at least four days, that he was held to pressure his brother to surrender, and awarded Rs. 40,000 compensation to be recovered from the salaries of those responsible. It directed that its displeasure with the SHO and the Investigating Officer be recorded in their service records.

> The police cannot resort to pressure tactics to compel the actual offender to surrender before it by unlawfully detaining an innocent member of his family who has no connection with the alleged offence.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197536445/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-police-cannot-detain-innocent-family-member-accused-surrender-552575)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Court finding', 'position_explainer': 'A court has made a finding on this allegation.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Prayagraj Man (Corpus) And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-10-05', 'scope': 'Past-week sweep (26 Sep-5 Oct): order dated 09.09.2026 first reported on 01.10.2026; record written from the order text on Indian Kanoon; quote checked verbatim; officers and the detained man are not named.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Allahabad', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court held the petitioner was in unlawful police custody from 23.06.2026 to 26.06.2026, awarded Rs. 40,000 compensation recoverable from the salaries of the personnel responsible, and directed that its displeasure be recorded in the service records of the SHO and the Investigating Officer.', 'disposition': 'Adverse finding (illegal detention) · Rs. 40,000 compensation · recovery from salaries · service-record entry', 'source': 'HABC No. 906 of 2026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-10-05
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197536445/', 'link_checked': '2026-10-05'}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-police-cannot-detain-innocent-family-member-accused-surrender-552575', 'link_checked': '2026-10-05'}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Checked against the Allahabad High Court order dated 09.09.2026 in HABC No. 906 of 2026 (Indian Kanoon), first reported by LiveLaw on 01.10.2026. The detention period is at para 7, the compensation and recovery at para 9, and the finding and service-record direction at para 10. The officers named in the order are withheld here.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0101](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0101)

## Deoria Man And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others (CW-2026-0105)

**Record:** CW-2026-0105 (compiler id CWC-1395)
**Title:** Deoria Man And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court (verified as High Court of Judicature at Allahabad); judges: Atul Sreedharan; Divesh Chandra Samant
**Case number / citation:** HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 506 of 2026
**Judgment:** 2026-09-09 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-04-13 (2026)
**Place:** Deoria, Uttar Pradesh; police station or unit: P.S. Gauri Bazar, District Deoria; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Section 119(g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer (since transferred), P.S. Gauri Bazar, Deoria (1 in record)
**Victims:** Deoria man; Deoria woman; Deoria woman; Deoria woman (4 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 65,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court recorded that after a murder FIR at P.S. Gauri Bazar, Deoria, police took relatives of a named accused, who were not themselves accused, into custody: a man was held for two days, and two women and a two-and-a-half-year-old girl were held from 13.04.2026 to 23.04.2026 without arrest or production before a Magistrate, and were released a day before the habeas corpus petition was filed. The SHO said the station's CCTV stopped working on 12.04.2026; the Superintendent of Police's own inquiry found him guilty of dereliction for not keeping it functional, and the DVR held only fragments of footage for 12-16 April. The court applied the presumption against the party withholding evidence, held the SHO responsible for the detentions, observed that footage may have been deliberately deleted, and directed the State to pay Rs 20,000 each to the three held for ten days and Rs 5,000 to the man, to be recovered from the salary of those responsible after an enquiry, with its displeasure recorded in the SHO's service book.

> Under the said circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to presume that the period during which the camera feed was not recorded, may also have been physically deleted in order to wipe out the evidence of the proceedings in the Thana during that relevant period of time.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13242551/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/allahabad-hc-bunch-liars-sho-sp-police-station-cctv-lapses-65k-compensation-illegal-detention-549334)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Court finding', 'position_explainer': 'A court has made a finding on this allegation.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Deoria Man And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-10-05', 'scope': 'Copwatch expansion sweep: order dated 09.09.2026 was missing from the site; record written from the order text on Indian Kanoon; quote checked verbatim; officer and family members not named.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-09', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Allahabad', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "The High Court held the then SHO responsible for unlawful detentions of up to ten days, awarded Rs 65,000 in all, recoverable from the salary of those responsible after an enquiry, and directed an entry in his service book. The SP's own inquiry had earlier found the SHO guilty of dereliction over the CCTV system.", 'disposition': 'Adverse finding (illegal detention; CCTV footage presumed deleted) · Rs 65,000 compensation · recovery from salary · service-book entry', 'source': 'HABC No. 506 of 2026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-10-05
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13242551/', 'link_checked': '2026-10-05'}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Checked against the Allahabad High Court order dated 09.09.2026 in HABC No. 506 of 2026 (Indian Kanoon). Detention periods at paras 1-4, the SP's inquiry and DVR gaps at paras 9-11, the presumption at paras 15 and 19, and compensation and recovery at para 21. The SHO and the detained family members are not named here; one detainee was a two-and-a-half-year-old child.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0105](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0105)

## Prayagraj Man (Corpus) And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others (CW-2026-0064)

**Record:** CW-2026-0064 (compiler id CWC-1331); case cop-up-hc-0
**Title:** Prayagraj Man (Corpus) And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
**Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; judges: Atul Sreedharan; Achal Sachdev
**Case number / citation:** HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1222 of 2026 / 2026:AHC:196414-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-09-18 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-08-15 (2026)
**Place:** Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh; police station or unit: P.S. Meja, District Prayagraj; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(3) of BNS; Sections 21 and 22 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025; Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, P.S. Meja, District Prayagraj; Station House Officer, P.S. Meja, District Prayagraj; Additional Inspector / Investigating Officer, P.S. Meja, District Prayagraj (3 in record)
**Victims:** Prayagraj man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court held that the corpus was taken from his shop on 15.08.2026 and produced before the Magistrate only on 19.08.2026 without procedural backing. The High Court held that the detention from 15.08.2026 till production was illegal custody. The High Court ordered release unless wanted in another case and directed the State to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for illegal detention. The High Court directed the State to recover the amount from erring personnel after a disciplinary inquiry within three months.

> petitioner was held in illegal custody from 15.08.2026 till he was produced

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198729602/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** para 5
**display title redacted:** Prayagraj Man (Corpus) And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-24', 'scope': 'Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Allahabad', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad recorded adverse findings against police personnel.', 'disposition': 'adverse finding compensation', 'source': '2026:AHC:196414-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-24
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198729602/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Verified against the cited judgment.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0064](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0064)

## Chitrakoot Man And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others (CW-2026-0102)

**Record:** CW-2026-0102 (compiler id CWC-1392)
**Title:** Chitrakoot Man And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
**Court:** Allahabad High Court (verified as High Court of Judicature at Allahabad); judges: Atul Sreedharan; Achal Sachdev
**Case number / citation:** HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1169 of 2026
**Judgment:** 2026-09-23 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2026-07-13 (2026)
**Place:** Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh; police station or unit: P.S. Sardhuwa, District Chitrakoot; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Section 119(g) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer (since suspended), P.S. Sardhuwa, Chitrakoot; Investigating Officer, P.S. Sardhuwa, Chitrakoot (2 in record)
**Victims:** Chitrakoot man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The High Court recorded that a sand-mining businessman, accused in a cheating and breach-of-trust FIR arising from what the informant himself called a civil dispute, was brought into P.S. Sardhuwa, Chitrakoot at 9:00 a.m. on 13.07.2026, taken out at 10:19 a.m. in the informant's vehicle accompanied by the Investigating Officer, and brought back at 8:24 p.m., while the arrest memo showed arrest at 3:30 p.m. and the general diary showed him in the lock-up from 6:41 p.m. Footage from the three cameras inside the police station was not produced. The court rejected the explanation for the missing footage as false and mischievous, held the feeds were deliberately deleted or not saved, found the grounds of arrest woefully inadequate, set aside the arrest, and awarded Rs. 10,000 for 24 hours' illegal detention, recoverable from the person found responsible after inquiry. It observed that the police appeared to have acted as recovery agents for the complainant, and laid down that police-station CCTV must run 24/7 with general-diary entries and release receipts whenever it fails.

> the feeds within the police Thana were deliberately either deleted or deliberately not saved in the DVR as there is no argument put forth with regard to malfunction of any CCTV cameras

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173578843/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-police-station-cctv-safeguards-arrested-interrogation-552464)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Court finding', 'position_explainer': 'A court has made a finding on this allegation.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** Chitrakoot Man And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-10-05', 'scope': 'Past-week sweep (26 Sep-5 Oct): order dated 23.09.2026 reported on 30.09.2026; record written from the order text on Indian Kanoon; quote checked verbatim; officers and the petitioner are not named.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-09-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'High Court of Judicature at Allahabad', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "The High Court set aside the arrest for inadequate grounds, ordered release, awarded Rs. 10,000 for 24 hours' illegal detention recoverable after inquiry, and directed that police-station CCTV run 24/7 with general-diary safeguards when it fails.", 'disposition': 'Adverse finding (illegal detention, deliberate loss of CCTV footage) · arrest set aside · Rs. 10,000 compensation · CCTV directions', 'source': 'HABC No. 1169 of 2026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-10-05
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173578843/', 'link_checked': '2026-10-05'}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-police-station-cctv-safeguards-arrested-interrogation-552464', 'link_checked': '2026-10-05'}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Checked against the Allahabad High Court order dated 23.09.2026 in HABC No. 1169 of 2026 (Indian Kanoon), reported by LiveLaw on 30.09.2026. CCTV timings at paras 11 and 15-17, the finding on deleted feeds at paras 13-15, grounds of arrest at para 19, CCTV directions at paras 20-21, and release and compensation at paras 24-25. The underlying cheating case is not assessed by the court. Officers and the petitioner are not named here.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0102](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0102)

## Mahavir Prasad v. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal and Others (CW-2005-0005)

**Record:** CW-2005-0005 (compiler id CWC-0417); case UTTARA-014
**Title:** Mahavir Prasad v. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal and Others
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: V. S. Sirpurkar; Prafulla C. Pant
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition against Tribunal judgment and order dated 06.07.2000 / 2005(2) AWC 1520 (UHC)
**Judgment:** 2005-02-15 (2005, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-06-17 (1991)
**Place:** Nainital, Uttarakhand; city town: Nainital; police station or unit: U.P. Armed Police (directed to join duties at Nainital); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Police Act s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Mahavir Prasad (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Replace closing boilerplate to note the State case as recorded in the dismissal order and Tribunal findings (para 8). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, we are of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1442185/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Mahavir Prasad v. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para', 'summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2005-02-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2005(2) AWC 1520 (UHC)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1442185/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** UHC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; dismissal for unauthorised absence upheld, Arts.14/21/311(2) plea rejected.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2005-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2005-0005)

## Constable 40695 Baram Dutt vs State of Uttarakhand and Others (CW-2007-0015)

**Record:** CW-2007-0015 (compiler id CWC-0408); case UTTARA-005
**Title:** Constable 40695 Baram Dutt vs State of Uttarakhand and Others
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: Rajeev Gupta; J. C. S. Rawat
**Case number / citation:** Special Appeal No. 147 of 2007 / (2007) 12 UK CK 0006; (2008) 8 UC 914
**Judgment:** 2007-12-12 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-03-22 (2005)
**Place:** Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand; city town: Rudrapur; police station or unit: 31st Battalion PAC, Rudrapur; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** UP Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1991 r.8(2)(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Baram Dutt (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Replace closing boilerplate with the recorded State version: counter affidavit pleaded red-handed drunken catch, medical proof of consumption, appellant's guilty plea before the Assistant Commandant, and prior censure entries (para 4). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is amply established that the Appellant had consumed the liquor on the relevant time and he was indulged in unbecoming behaviour. Thus, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the misconduct of Constable \[name withheld\] who was on reserve duty cannot be said to be that serious as of the Appellant. The Appellant was found in the state of intoxication while he was performing the Santri duty of the armoury.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/942398/cons-40695-baram-dutt-appellant-hash-state-of-uttarakhand-and-others-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=307002394200&title=cons-40695-baram-dutt-vs-state-of-uttarakhand)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Constable 40695 Baram Dutt vs State of Uttarakhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-12-12', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2007) 12 UK CK 0006; (2008) 8 UC 914', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/942398/cons-40695-baram-dutt-appellant-hash-state-of-uttarakhand-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=307002394200&title=cons-40695-baram-dutt-vs-state-of-uttarakhand', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Internal discipline: drunk on sentry duty; Rule 8(2)(b) dismissal upheld. No citizen victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2007-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0015)

## Ishwari Ram vs State of U.P. (CW-2008-0009)

**Record:** CW-2008-0009 (compiler id CWC-0411); case UTTARA-008
**Title:** Ishwari Ram vs State of U.P.
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: Prafulla C. Pant; Dharam Veer
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2001 / (2008) CriLJ 4163
**Judgment:** 2008-06-02 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-02-28 (1991)
**Place:** Nainital, Uttarakhand; city town: Kaladhungi; police station or unit: Sub-treasury guard, Kaladhungi (Armed Police); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ishwari Ram (Constable (No. 438, Armed Police)) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kaladhungi man; Kaladhungi man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

Replace closing boilerplate to note the appellant's recorded defence (denial; motive/contradiction pleas at paras 10-13, rejected). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For the reasons, as discussed above, we do not find any error of law or that of the fact committed by the trial Court in convicting the accused under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. We concur with the conviction recorded by the trial Court and sentences awarded by said Court to the accused/appellant-Ishwari Ram. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/943742/ishwari-ram-appellant-hash-state-of-up-respondent/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/514326/ishwari-ram-vs-state-u-p)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 14-15
**display title redacted:** Ishwari Ram vs State of U.P.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Uttarakhand High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Uttarakhand High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2008) CriLJ 4163', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2008-06-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2008) CriLJ 4163', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/943742/ishwari-ram-appellant-hash-state-of-up-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/514326/ishwari-ram-vs-state-u-p', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC dismissed appeal; life plus 5 years RI confirmed, bail cancelled, surrender ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0009)

## Constable Harish Chand Pandey vs The State (CW-2009-0007)

**Record:** CW-2009-0007 (compiler id CWC-0407); case UTTARA-004
**Title:** Constable Harish Chand Pandey vs The State
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: Prafulla C. Pant; Brahma Singh Verma
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 2001 / (2009) NCC 808; (2009) 07 UK CK 0062
**Judgment:** 2009-07-28 (2009, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-08-22 (1992)
**Place:** Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand; city town: Khatima; police station or unit: Security guard detail, Rastogi (Prabhat) Farm, Khatima; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Harish Chand Pandey (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Khatima man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

Replace closing boilerplate to note the appellant's recorded defence (s.313 admissions/denials; pleas of poor light, no motive and drunkenness for s.304 Part I, all rejected at paras 11-13). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> From the above oral evidence on record, as discussed above, read with the autopsy report (Ext. A -5) and the report of the Forensic Expert (Ext. A -16) in which it is mentioned that after examination it was found that the empty cartridges sent to the laboratory were found to have been fired from the Rifle No. 84C/5209 (recovered from accused Harish Chand Pandey), establishes on the record that Harish Chand Pandey has committed murder of his colleague a Khatima man

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/947779/constable-harish-chand-pandey-appellant-hash-the-state-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=129002322000&Title=CONSTABLE-HARISH-CHAND-PANDEY-Vs.-STATE)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Constable Harish Chand Pandey vs The State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Uttarakhand High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Uttarakhand High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2009) NCC 808; (2009) 07 UK CK 0062', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2009-07-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2009) NCC 808; (2009) 07 UK CK 0062', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/947779/constable-harish-chand-pandey-appellant-hash-the-state-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=129002322000&Title=CONSTABLE-HARISH-CHAND-PANDEY-Vs.-STATE', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** On-duty murder of fellow officer with service rifle; life + fine confirmed. Borderline scope (police victim).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2009-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2009-0007)

## State of Uttaranchal and Others vs Pauri Police Constable and Another (CW-2010-0004)

**Record:** CW-2010-0004 (compiler id CWC-0409); case UTTARA-006
**Title:** State of Uttaranchal and Others vs Pauri Police Constable and Another
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: J. S. Khehar; Sudhanshu Dhulia
**Case number / citation:** (2010) 05 UK CK 0018
**Judgment:** 2010-05-18 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-05-08 (1997)
**Place:** Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand; city town: Pauri; police station or unit: Police Lines, Pauri; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Lines, Pauri (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Replace closing boilerplate to note respondent No.2's recorded case (heel pain, no medical evidence; condonation plea, rejected at paras 5-6). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Ample opportunity was given to respondent No. 2 in the disciplinary proceedings where he failed to establish his case or to justify his continued unauthorised absence for a period of 205 days. The police is a disciplined force and in case the charge of unauthorized absence is proved, it may invite the maximum punishment.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/943219/state-of-uttaranchal-and-others-appellant-hash-the-public-services-tribunal-and-another-responde/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** State of Uttaranchal and Others vs Pauri Police Constable and Another
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['summary'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-05-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2010) 05 UK CK 0018', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/943219/state-of-uttaranchal-and-others-appellant-hash-the-public-services-tribunal-and-another-responde/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** State writ allowed; Tribunal order set aside; dismissal for 205-day absence restored. No citizen victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0004)

## Het Ram Puri v. State of Uttaranchal (CW-2010-0007)

**Record:** CW-2010-0007 (compiler id CWC-0419); case UTTARA-016
**Title:** Het Ram Puri v. State of Uttaranchal
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition against SP Champawat order dated 07.12.2000 and DIG Kumaon order dated 27.06.2002 / (2010) 08 UK CK 0096
**Judgment:** 2010-08-06 (2010, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-07-15 (1999)
**Place:** Champawat, Uttarakhand; city town: Champawat; police station or unit: Champawat (transferred from Moradabad); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Het Ram Puri (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed Constable Het Ram Puri's writ petition, upholding his dismissal on 7 December 2000 and the appellate order of June 2002. The Court recorded that after transfer from Moradabad to Champawat in June 1999 with directions to join by 15 July 1999, he never joined and did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings despite notices affixed at his Bareilly home. It rejected his tuberculosis plea for want of a medical certificate or hospital admission, and his argument that leave-without-pay condoned the absence. The Court held the police is a disciplined force and the absence could not be condoned. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the present Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/945209/het-ram-puri-appellant-hash-state-of-uttaranchal-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 5
**display title redacted:** Het Ram Puri v. State of Uttaranchal
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2010-08-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2010) 08 UK CK 0096', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/945209/het-ram-puri-appellant-hash-state-of-uttaranchal-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** UHC judgment verified on CourtKutchehry; dismissal for failure to join transferred posting upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2010-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2010-0007)

## Devendra Kumar vs State of Uttaranchal and Others (CW-2013-0009)

**Record:** CW-2013-0009 (compiler id CWC-0413); case UTTARA-010
**Title:** Devendra Kumar vs State of Uttaranchal and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: B.S. Chauhan; S.A. Bobde
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal (against Special Appeal No. 16 of 2003, Uttarakhand High Court) / (2013) 9 SCC 363
**Judgment:** 2013-07-29 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2001-10-18 (2001)
**Place:** Uttarakhand; police station or unit: Uttarakhand Police (2001 constable recruitment; training from 18.10.2001); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Devendra Kumar (Constable (recruit, 2001 batch)) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Devendra Kumar was selected as a constable in Uttarakhand's September 2001 recruitment and sent for training on 18 October 2001, submitting an affidavit that he had never been involved in any criminal case. Character verification in January 2002 revealed he had in fact been involved in a criminal case in which a final report was later accepted, and he was discharged in April 2002 as a temporary servant. A Single Judge and then a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court upheld the discharge. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, holding that suppression of material information sought by the employer itself amounts to moral turpitude and fraud, so the termination was proper and called for no interference.

> The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude.

**Sources (2):** [lawweb.in](https://www.lawweb.in/2014/01/suppression-of-material-information.html?m=1); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af35e4b0149711415d2d)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 10
**display title redacted:** Devendra Kumar vs State of Uttaranchal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-07-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2013) 9 SCC 363', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.lawweb.in/2014/01/suppression-of-material-information.html?m=1', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af35e4b0149711415d2d', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC upheld discharge of constable-recruit for suppressing criminal antecedents in affidavit.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0009)

## Deepak Singh Bhandari v. State of Uttarakhand and Others (CW-2013-0016)

**Record:** CW-2013-0016 (compiler id CWC-0418); case UTTARA-015
**Title:** Deepak Singh Bhandari v. State of Uttarakhand and Others
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: Alok Singh
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 1574 of 2012 / (2014) LabIC 355
**Judgment:** 2013-10-29 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-01-01 (2007)
**Place:** Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand; police station or unit: Uttarakhand Police (dismissed by Superintendent of Police, Tehri Garhwal); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deepak Singh Bhandari (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Tehri Garhwal man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed Constable Deepak Singh Bhandari's writ petition, upholding his dismissal from service on 13 May 2010. The Court recorded that in 2007 he took Rs. 1 lakh from villager a Tehri Garhwal man, claiming influence with superior officers and promising to get a Tehri Garhwal man's son recruited into the Uttarakhand Police, and never refunded the money after the son failed selection. It held the inquiry finding that he had demanded and accepted the money was justified and that such conduct was serious misconduct. The Court found the punishment totally justified; no Prevention of Corruption Act prosecution is recorded in the judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, seems to be totally justified. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/944870/deepak-singh-bhandari-appellant-hash-state-of-uttarakhand-and-others-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=123102152000&Title=DEEPAK-SINGH-BHANDARI-Vs.-STATE-OF-UTTARAKHAND)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Deepak Singh Bhandari v. State of Uttarakhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-10-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2014) LabIC 355', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/944870/deepak-singh-bhandari-appellant-hash-state-of-uttarakhand-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=123102152000&Title=DEEPAK-SINGH-BHANDARI-Vs.-STATE-OF-UTTARAKHAND', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** UHC judgment verified on CourtKutchehry; dismissal for taking Rs.1 lakh for recruitment upheld (departmental finding only).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0016)

## Uttarakhand Police Head Constable and others vs State of Uttarakhand (CW-2015-0001)

**Record:** CW-2015-0001 (compiler id CWC-0406); case UTTARA-003
**Title:** Uttarakhand Police Head Constable and others vs State of Uttarakhand
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: Umesh Chandra Dhyani
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2015 / (2015) 01 UK CK 0003
**Judgment:** 2015-01-07 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-08-12 (2005)
**Place:** Haridwar, Uttarakhand; city town: Haridwar; police station or unit: Uttarakhand Police Escort Party; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 223; Probation of Offenders Act 1958 s.4
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Uttarakhand Police Escort Party; Constable, Uttarakhand Police Escort Party (2 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The Uttarakhand High Court affirmed the conviction of Head Constable and other escort personnel under Section 223 of the Indian Penal Code for negligently suffering the escape of an undertrial prisoner from custody. The police party was escorting prisoner Gulzar Khan by train from Haldwani to Dehradun on 12 August 2005 when the personnel fell asleep and the handcuffed prisoner escaped. The trial court had sentenced each appellant to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500. While upholding the conviction, the High Court released the appellants on probation of good conduct for one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and directed refund of the fine. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment so far as the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 223 IPC is concerned. The conviction of the appellants under Section 223 IPC is, therefore, affirmed.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/254454/head-constable-41-ap-puran-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-uttarakhand-respondent/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e3c44a93261a672b80cb)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Uttarakhand Police Head Constable and others vs State of Uttarakhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Uttarakhand High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Uttarakhand High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2015) 01 UK CK 0003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2015-01-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2015) 01 UK CK 0003', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/254454/head-constable-41-ap-puran-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-uttarakhand-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e3c44a93261a672b80cb', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Uttarakhand HC affirmed conviction of Head Constable and escort constables under IPC 223 for negligent escape of prisoner, releasing them on probation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0001)

## Uttarakhand Police Sub-Inspector (SHO, PS Dalanwala) v. CBI (Dehradun Man fake encounter case) (CW-2018-0003)

**Record:** CW-2018-0003 (compiler id CWC-0521); case SWDISPRO-018
**Title:** Uttarakhand Police Sub-Inspector (SHO, PS Dalanwala) v. CBI (Dehradun Man fake encounter case)
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: S. Muralidhar; I. S. Mehta
**Case number / citation:** CRL.A. Nos. 1003/2014 and connected appeals (against Special CBI Court, Delhi; trial transferred from Dehradun) / AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 2424
**Judgment:** 2018-02-06 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2009-07-03 (2009)
**Place:** Dehradun, Uttarakhand; city town: Dehradun; police station or unit: PS Dalanwala, Dehradun; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B; IPC 302; IPC 364
**Officers (gated display forms):** Santosh Kumar Jaiswal (A1) (Sub-Inspector (SHO, PS Dalanwala)); Gopal Dutt Bhatt (A2) (Sub-Inspector); Rajesh Bisht (A3) (Sub-Inspector); Neeraj Kumar (A4) (Sub-Inspector); Nitin Chauhan (A5) (Sub-Inspector); Chander Mohan Singh Rawat (A6) (Sub-Inspector); Ajeet Singh (A7) (Constable) (7 in record)
**Victims:** Dehradun man, age 20 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Delhi High Court confirmed the life sentences (plus Rs 50,000 fine each) of seven Uttarakhand policemen for abducting 20-year-old a Dehradun man after a noon scuffle on 3 July 2009 and shooting him dead in a staged encounter near Raipur, Dehradun. Holding the police self-defence version disproved, the Court confirmed the convictions under Sections 120-B, 302 and 364 read with 120-B IPC, while acquitting A-8 to \[name withheld\] for want of evidence of the larger plan. The Court cancelled the bail of A-1 to A-7, directing surrender forthwith. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This Court confirms the conviction of A-1 to A-7 for the offences under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 302 and 364 read with Section 120-B IPC.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29093853/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/delhi-hc-upholds-conviction-seven-policemen-encounter-killing-youth-uttarakhand-read-judgment/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/dehradun-fake-encounter-case-17-policemen-awarded-life-imprisonment)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 174
**display title redacted:** Uttarakhand Police Sub-Inspector (SHO, PS Dalanwala) v. CBI (Dehradun Man fake encounter case)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 2424', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2018-02-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 2424', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29093853/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/delhi-hc-upholds-conviction-seven-policemen-encounter-killing-youth-uttarakhand-read-judgment/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/amp/dehradun-fake-encounter-case-17-policemen-awarded-life-imprisonment', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** 7 life terms for fake encounter confirmed; A-8 to \[name withheld\] acquitted. Subcategory, victim age corrected.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0003)

## Haldwani Woman vs State of Uttarakhand and Others (CW-2018-0025)

**Record:** CW-2018-0025 (compiler id CWC-1312); case GAP3-97-001
**Title:** Haldwani Woman vs State of Uttarakhand and Others
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: Lok Pal Singh
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Writ Petition No. 1050 of 2018 / (2018) 07 UK CK 0124
**Judgment:** 2018-07-24 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-08-22 (2014)
**Place:** Nainital, Uttarakhand; city town: Haldwani; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 324; CrPC 173; CrPC 55A; Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector; Investigating Officer (2 in record)
**Victims:** Haldwani man, age 36 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Haldwani man, aged 36, was lodged in Sub-jail Haldwani on 21 August 2014 and found dead the next day with several injuries on his body; the murder case (Case Crime No. 460 of 2014) twice ended in closure reports calling the death natural. The court found the post-mortem injuries unexplained, held the Investigating Officer had made a false statement before the court and filed final reports without fair investigation, and found the ADM's shielding report false. Holding that fair investigation is part of fair trial under Article 21, it directed the SSP CBI Dehradun to register and investigate the case, the DGP to start a departmental inquiry against SI, and the State to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation to the widow within three months. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The State Government shall pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner on account of custodial death of her husband namely, a Haldwani man within three months from today.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/965314/smt-kalawati-rawat-appellant-hash-state-of-uttarakhand-and-others-respondent/); [cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in](https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3bc7f621451b4f5df308a8e098112185d/uploads/2024/11/20241130609778589.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** Haldwani Woman vs State of Uttarakhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-07-24', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2018) 07 UK CK 0124', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/965314/smt-kalawati-rawat-appellant-hash-state-of-uttarakhand-and-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3bc7f621451b4f5df308a8e098112185d/uploads/2024/11/20241130609778589.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Custodial death with post-mortem injuries; Rs 5 lakh compensation plus CBI probe and dept inquiry against SI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2018-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0025)

## Bhagat Ram vs U.P. Public Services Tribunal and Others (CW-2018-0014)

**Record:** CW-2018-0014 (compiler id CWC-0410); case UTTARA-007
**Title:** Bhagat Ram vs U.P. Public Services Tribunal and Others
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: Rajiv Sharma; Manoj Kumar Tiwari
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (S/B) No. 24 of 2001 (Old No. 38017 of 2000) / (2018) 09 UK CK 0099
**Judgment:** 2018-09-26 (2018, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1989-05-12 (1989)
**Place:** Dehradun, Uttarakhand; city town: Dehradun; police station or unit: Civil Police, PS Kotwali, Dehradun; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Bhagat Ram (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petition of Constable Bhagat Ram of the Dehradun Civil Police, affirming the Tribunal and upholding his dismissal for unauthorised absence beginning 12 May 1989. The Court noted he ignored suspension and a charge-sheet served at his home, never participated in the inquiry, and stood dismissed by the SP Dehradun in December 1990 with the DIG appeal failing in 1992 and the Tribunal claim in 1995. It held the inquiry finding was evidence-based, the absence till dismissal stood proved, and no interference was warranted with a disciplined force decision. Scope note: a purely internal disciplinary matter with no citizen victim. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Petitioner is a member of disciplined force. As member of disciplined force, petitioner was expected to follow the rules and orders of his superior officers. Petitioner was required to report back for duties on 12.05.1989, but he did not resume duties till his dismissal i.e. 31.12.1990.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/972552/bhagat-ram-appellant-hash-up-public-services-tribunal-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Bhagat Ram vs U.P. Public Services Tribunal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2018-09-26', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2018) 09 UK CK 0099', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/972552/bhagat-ram-appellant-hash-up-public-services-tribunal-others-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Decades-long absence litigation ends; dismissal upheld, Tribunal affirmed. No citizen victim.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2018-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2018-0014)

## State of Uttarakhand & Ors. vs Prem Ram (CW-2019-0004)

**Record:** CW-2019-0004 (compiler id CWC-0404); case UTTARA-001
**Title:** State of Uttarakhand & Ors. vs Prem Ram
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: D.Y. Chandrachud; Hemant Gupta
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 3152 of 2019 / AIRONLINE 2019 SC 914
**Judgment:** 2019-03-15 (2019, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2006-11-01 (2006)
**Place:** Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand; city town: Berinag; police station or unit: Berinag, Pithoragarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Prem Ram (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable Prem Ram, posted at Berinag in Pithoragarh district, was found in an inebriated state on 1 November 2006 misbehaving with members of the public, with a medical examination confirming he was under the influence of alcohol. After a disciplinary enquiry proved the charge, the Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh dismissed him on 16 May 2007, and his departmental appeal, revision and writ petition before a Single Judge all failed. A Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court, however, converted the dismissal into compulsory retirement citing 25 years of service. The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, holding that having regard to the seriousness of the misconduct and the fact that he was a member of the police service, there was no justification to interfere with the dismissal.

> Having regard to the seriousness of the charge of misconduct and the fact that the respondent was a member of the police service, we find no justification for the High Court to interfere with the order of dismissal.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61219925/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-359469.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-weekly-round-up-143983)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** State of Uttarakhand & Ors. vs Prem Ram
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2019-03-15', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIRONLINE 2019 SC 914', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61219925/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-359469.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-weekly-round-up-143983', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court restored dismissal of Constable Prem Ram for drunkenness and misbehaviour with public, setting aside lenient HC order.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2019-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2019-0004)

## Pithoragarh Police Constable v. State of Uttarakhand (CW-2020-0005)

**Record:** CW-2020-0005 (compiler id CWC-0414); case UTTARA-011
**Title:** Pithoragarh Police Constable v. State of Uttarakhand
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: Ramesh Ranganathan; Ramesh Chandra Khulbe
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (S/B) No. 457 of 2016
**Judgment:** 2020-02-14 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2011-10-26 (2011)
**Place:** Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand; city town: Pithoragarh; police station or unit: Police Line, Pithoragarh; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Line, Pithoragarh (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petition of Constable, affirming the Public Services Tribunal's order upholding his dismissal from service on 4 January 2013. The Court recorded that he absented himself in three spells from 26 October 2011 totalling over a year (99, 247 and 86 days), ignoring joining notices, the preliminary-enquiry notice, the charge-sheet, inquiry notices and the show-cause notice. It held the absence was wilful and prolonged rather than of short duration, disbelieving his medical certificates. The Court found no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We are satisfied, in such circumstances, that the order of the Tribunal does not necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60405814/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Pithoragarh Police Constable v. State of Uttarakhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2020-02-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Petition (S/B) No. 457 of 2016', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60405814/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** UHC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; constable's dismissal for prolonged wilful absence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2020-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0005)

## Purnagiri Police Constable v. State of Uttarakhand and Others (CW-2021-0005)

**Record:** CW-2021-0005 (compiler id CWC-0416); case UTTARA-013
**Title:** Purnagiri Police Constable v. State of Uttarakhand and Others
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: Ravindra Maithani
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1289 of 2015
**Judgment:** 2021-05-04 (2021, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2013-04-17 (2013)
**Place:** Champawat, Uttarakhand; city town: Purnagiri; police station or unit: Purnagiri Mela duty / Police Line Almora; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Purnagiri Mela duty / Police Line Almora (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed Constable's writ petition, upholding his termination from service on 18 November 2013. The Court recorded that while on Purnagiri Mela duty on 17 April 2013 he was found intoxicated and misbehaving with tourists, and thereafter remained absent without leave from 18 April to 1 May 2013. It noted a departmental inquiry had proved both charges and his departmental appeal had been dismissed in March 2014. The Court held the acts constituted gross misconduct for a police constable, noted his past warnings and punishments, and found the punishment not disproportionate. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Having considered all these facts, this Court is of the view that the punishment as imposed upon the petitioner is not disproportionate. There is no merit in this writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124467876/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 30
**display title redacted:** Purnagiri Police Constable v. State of Uttarakhand and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2021-05-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1289 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124467876/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** UHC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; termination for intoxication on duty plus absence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2021-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2021-0005)

## Uttarakhand Police Constable vs State of Uttarakhand (CW-2023-0024)

**Record:** CW-2023-0024 (compiler id CWC-0412); case UTTARA-009
**Title:** Uttarakhand Police Constable vs State of Uttarakhand
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: Alok Kumar Verma
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Revision No. 793 of 2022 / (2023) 08 UK CK 0135
**Judgment:** 2023-08-23 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-07-25 (2003)
**Place:** Haridwar, Uttarakhand; city town: Haridwar; police station or unit: Uttarakhand Police escort party (Haridwar courts); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 223
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Uttarakhand Police escort party (Haridwar courts) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court records the following account. On 25 July 2003 Constable and fellow constables were escorting accused \[name withheld\] back after production before the Special Judge (Gangster Act) when he escaped from their custody at the railway station. The trial court convicted \[name withheld\] under Section 223 IPC in August 2018 with a Rs 2,000 fine, acquitting him under Section 224, and the I Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar dismissed his appeal in December 2022. In criminal revision the Uttarakhand High Court left the findings of the courts below untouched but, noting 20-year pendency, a clean record and probation granted to two co-accused, altered the sentence to release on probation of good conduct for six months on a Rs 30,000 bond. The court directed that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 shall apply. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Revisionist was acquitted of the charge framed under Section 224 IPC, however, he was convicted under Section 223 IPC.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1174742/constable-rakshpal-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-uttarakhand-respondent/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64f0cf4db5a7ac7336374918)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 8
**display title redacted:** Uttarakhand Police Constable vs State of Uttarakhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Uttarakhand High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Uttarakhand High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2023) 08 UK CK 0135', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2023-08-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2023) 08 UK CK 0135', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1174742/constable-rakshpal-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-uttarakhand-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64f0cf4db5a7ac7336374918', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Conviction under s.223 IPC maintained; sentence altered to six months probation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0024)

## Uttarakhand Police Head Constable v. State of Uttarakhand (CW-2012-0016)

**Record:** CW-2012-0016 (compiler id CWC-0551); case SWFAKEEN-012
**Title:** Uttarakhand Police Head Constable v. State of Uttarakhand
**Court:** Supreme Court of India
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 217 and 218 of 2006
**Judgment:** 2025-01-28 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2004-11-15 (2004)
**Place:** Dehradun, Uttarakhand; city town: Rishikesh; police station or unit: Police Station Rishikesh; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; Arms Act 1959 s.27(1)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Station Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Rishikesh woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. On the night of 15 November 2004, acting on a liquor-smuggling tip, Head Constable with three constables intercepted a Maruti car near IDPL Gate, Rishikesh, and when it failed to stop, \[name withheld\] fired a single.38-bore shot that struck front-seat passenger a Rishikesh woman in the temple, killing her. The Sessions Judge, Dehradun convicted \[name withheld\] under s.302/34 IPC and s.27(1) Arms Act with life imprisonment but acquitted the three constables. The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed \[name withheld\]'s appeals confirming his life sentence, while additionally convicting the three constables in the State's appeal. The Supreme Court (2025 INSC 114) quashed the three constables' conviction for want of common intention but affirmed the trial judgment, leaving \[name withheld\]'s life conviction intact. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The High Court dismissed the first set of criminal appeals preferred by accused No.1-\[name withheld\] thereby confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191647839/); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/supreme-court-judgments/no-prior-meeting-minds-supreme-court-acquits-three-constables-fake-encounter-case)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Uttarakhand Police Head Constable v. State of Uttarakhand
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \['case_title', 'court', 'judgment_date'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 217 and 218 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2025-01-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal Nos. 217 and 218 of 2006', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191647839/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://lawbeat.in/supreme-court-judgments/no-prior-meeting-minds-supreme-court-acquits-three-constables-fake-encounter-case', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Uttarakhand HC confirmed head constable's life term for fatal unjustified firing; SC 2025 left it intact.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0016)

## Union of India & Anr. vs Indo-Tibetan Border Police Constable (General Duty) (CW-2025-0006)

**Record:** CW-2025-0006 (compiler id CWC-0896); case UTTARA-002
**Title:** Union of India & Anr. vs Indo-Tibetan Border Police Constable (General Duty)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Surya Kant; N. Kotiswar Singh
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 18628 of 2019 / 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 668
**Judgment:** 2025-05-20 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-07-04 (2005)
**Place:** Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand; police station or unit: ITBP battalion Kote, border post near Uttarkashi; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (General Duty), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Constable of the ITBP, recruited in 1990, was on sentry duty at the Kote on the night of 4/5 July 2005 guarding company cash boxes containing lakhs of rupees meant for disbursement to personnel. He broke open the Kote lock, took the cash, concealed the cash box about 200 yards away and fled the post, later confessing upon arrest. A Court of Inquiry and Summary Force Court found him guilty on all five charges and dismissed him on 14 November 2005, but a Single Judge and then a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court directed reconsideration of the punishment as disproportionate. The Supreme Court allowed the Union's appeal, holding the robbery involved moral turpitude warranting zero tolerance in a paramilitary force, and restored the dismissal.

> All members of the force must note that there is zero tolerance for such brazen misconduct, where the guardian of the cash box became its looter.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2025-livelaw-sc-668-union-of-india-v-no-900224364-const-gd-jageshwar-singh-20-may-2025-609899.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-dismissal-of-itbp-sentry-for-gross-misconduct-cash-box-robbed-guardian-became-looter-294424); [courtbook.in](https://courtbook.in/posts/supreme-court-upholds-dismissal-of-itbp-constable-for-robbery-the-custodian-became-the-robber)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Union of India & Anr. vs Indo-Tibetan Border Police Constable (General Duty)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-05-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2025 LiveLaw (SC) 668', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2025-livelaw-sc-668-union-of-india-v-no-900224364-const-gd-jageshwar-singh-20-may-2025-609899.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-dismissal-of-itbp-sentry-for-gross-misconduct-cash-box-robbed-guardian-became-looter-294424', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://courtbook.in/posts/supreme-court-upholds-dismissal-of-itbp-constable-for-robbery-the-custodian-became-the-robber', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Supreme Court restored dismissal of ITBP sentry \[name withheld\] for robbing the company cash box he was guarding.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0006)

## Union of India & Ors. v. ITBP Constable (General Duty) (CW-2025-0039)

**Record:** CW-2025-0039 (compiler id CWC-1122); case GAP3-135-001
**Title:** Union of India & Ors. v. ITBP Constable (General Duty)
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: Surya Kant; N. Kotiswar Singh
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 7029 of 2025 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18628 of 2019) / 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 668
**Judgment:** 2025-05-20 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-07-04 (2005)
**Place:** Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand; police station or unit: Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Kote sentry post; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (General Duty), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. ITBP Constable was on sentry duty at the Kote on the night of 4/5 July 2005 when cash boxes meant for disbursement to company personnel were kept there. The Court found he broke open the lock, stole the cash, hid the box about 200 yards away and deserted his post, and was dismissed on 14 November 2005 after a Summary Force Court trial. The Supreme Court held the confession voluntary, the misconduct grave moral turpitude by a sentry in a sensitive border area with eight prior punishments, and dismissal proportionate. It allowed the Union's appeal, set aside the Uttarakhand High Court orders directing reconsideration of punishment, and restored the dismissal.

> All members of the force must note that there is zero tolerance for such brazen misconduct, where the guardian of the cash box became its looter.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2399120192025-05-20-603336.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-dismissal-of-itbp-sentry-for-gross-misconduct-cash-box-robbed-guardian-became-looter-294424); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3451017-supreme-court-confirms-dismissal-of-itbp-constable-for-robbery)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 11
**display title redacted:** Union of India & Ors. v. ITBP Constable (General Duty)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-05-20', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2025 LiveLaw (SC) 668', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2399120192025-05-20-603336.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-dismissal-of-itbp-sentry-for-gross-misconduct-cash-box-robbed-guardian-became-looter-294424', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3451017-supreme-court-confirms-dismissal-of-itbp-constable-for-robbery', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment verified; ITBP sentry's dismissal for cash-box robbery restored (disciplinary_upheld).
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0039)

## \[name withheld\] (deceased, through LRs) v. Public Services Tribunal and Others (CW-2025-0011)

**Record:** CW-2025-0011 (compiler id CWC-0415); case UTTARA-012
**Title:** \[name withheld\] (deceased, through LRs) v. Public Services Tribunal and Others
**Court:** Uttarakhand High Court; judges: Manoj Kumar Tiwari; Subhash Upadhyay
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition (S/B) No. 269 of 2011 / 2025:UHC:5603-DB
**Judgment:** 2025-07-02 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1993-01-12 (1993)
**Place:** Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand; city town: Narendra Nagar; police station or unit: Police Station Narendra Nagar; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (Civil Police), Police Station Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the legal representatives of deceased Constable, concurring with the Tribunal's order upholding his removal from service. The Court recorded that while posted at Police Station Narendra Nagar and deputed to Police Station Tehri for law-and-order duty, he absented himself from 12 January 1993 without leave and reported back after 123 days on 14 May 1993. It noted he ignored the de novo charge-sheet and enquiry notices leading to an ex parte enquiry and removal on 17 July 1997. The Court held such absence by a uniformed-force member amounts to desertion justifying dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Learned Tribunal has given valid reasons for dismissing the claim petition. We concur with the reasons given by learned Tribunal. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25728127/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 16
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] (deceased, through LRs) v. Public Services Tribunal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-07-02', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Uttarakhand High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Uttarakhand High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2025:UHC:5603-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25728127/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** UHC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; removal for 123-day desertion upheld, writ dismissed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2025-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0011)

## \[name withheld\] And Ors. vs Queen-Empress (CW-1885-0001)

**Record:** CW-1885-0001 (compiler id CWC-0746); case GAP6-004
**Title:** \[name withheld\] And Ors. vs Queen-Empress
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Prinsep
**Case number / citation:** (1885) ILR 11 Cal 530
**Judgment:** 1885-04-29 (1885, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** West Bengal; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 330
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable; Constable; Constable (3 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 0.5 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. Police arrested several persons on suspicion of murdering Mussamut Dhuri; two constables openly used violence on the prisoners and illegally detained them beyond the lawful period to obtain confessions which proved false, while Head Constable, in charge of the investigation, remained in their constant company. The Sessions Judge convicted all three under Section 330 IPC. The High Court upheld all convictions, holding \[name withheld\] an accomplice in the assaults and illegal detention, and, acting in revision, enhanced his sentence from four months simple to six months rigorous imprisonment while dismissing the constables' appeals. District and victim identities are not stated in the report (Bengal Presidency).

> he was not only cognizant of those assaults, but he was an accomplice in them, and in the illegal detention as the means by which he intended to obtain false confessions.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/834900/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_torture
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** \[name withheld\] And Ors. vs Queen-Empress
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Calcutta High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Calcutta High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(1885) ILR 11 Cal 530', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1885-04-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(1885) ILR 11 Cal 530', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/834900/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial torture
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** s.330 convictions of head constable and 2 constables upheld; head constable's term enhanced to 6 months RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1885-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1885-0001)

## Shalimar Police Sub-Inspector v. State of West Bengal and Others (CW-1954-0004)

**Record:** CW-1954-0004 (compiler id CWC-1150); case GAP3-28-003
**Title:** Shalimar Police Sub-Inspector v. State of West Bengal and Others
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Sinha
**Case number / citation:** Civil Rule challenging dismissal order dated 21-8-1952 / AIR 1955 Cal 183
**Judgment:** 1954-02-05 (1954, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1948-01-01 (1948)
**Place:** Howrah, West Bengal; city town: Shalimar; police station or unit: Shalimar Government Railway Police Station; force: railway
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Police Act 1861 s.7; Police Act 1861 s.35; Police Act 1861 s.42; Constitution Art. 311; Constitution Art. 320(3)(c)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Shalimar Government Railway Police Station, Howrah (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Sub-Inspector, officer-in-charge of Shalimar GRPS from December 1948, faced seven charges of misappropriation in malkhana goods sales during 1948-1950 following anonymous complaints, CID investigation and a DSP enquiry, and was dismissed on 21 August 1952. The court held that departmental findings honestly and impartially reached on circumstantial evidence were unexceptionable. It found no violation of Articles 311 or 320(3)(c), held the section 42 Police Act limitation inapplicable to departmental enquiries, and held the enquiry officer's dual role did not vitiate the findings. The application failed, the Rule was discharged and all interim orders vacated. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> All that has to be seen is as to whether he had honestly and impartially come to a conclusion which a reasonable man could arrive at. Judged by this test I find no error on the face of his findings.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166907/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56095edde4b01497112c8d39)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** Shalimar Police Sub-Inspector v. State of West Bengal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1954-02-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1955 Cal 183', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166907/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56095edde4b01497112c8d39', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Calcutta HC discharged the Rule; dismissal of Shalimar GRPS officer-in-charge for malkhana misappropriation (1948-1950) upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1954-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1954-0004)

## Ranaghat Police Constable vs The State (CW-1955-0002)

**Record:** CW-1955-0002 (compiler id CWC-0946); case GAP2-13-001
**Title:** Ranaghat Police Constable vs The State
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Debabrata Mookerjee
**Case number / citation:** AIR 1956 Cal 116
**Judgment:** 1955-12-06 (1955, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1954-04-25 (1954)
**Place:** Nadia, West Bengal; city town: Ranaghat; police station or unit: Ranaghat Government Railway Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Ranaghat Government Railway Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ranaghat man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** fine
**Sentence type:** fine (fine)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. On 25 April 1954 constable, on duty on Ranaghat station platform, accused traveller a Ranaghat man of blackmarketing two mats, marched him toward the GRP station, demanded money and took his purse containing Rs. 5. A Ranaghat man immediately complained to nearby witnesses, identified the constable on the platform, and lodged the FIR at the GRP station. The Special Court, Nadia convicted the constable under Section 161 IPC and fined him Rs. 100. The court believed the eyewitnesses, held the ingredients of Section 161 proved, rejected the extortion-only argument and the challenge to the Special Court trial, affirmed the conviction and retained the fine. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Taking the entire evidence as a whole I think there is no ground for interference with the conviction of the appellant.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90300/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56095ee0e4b01497112c8dde)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Ranaghat Police Constable vs The State
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Calcutta High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Calcutta High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1956 Cal 116', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1955-12-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1956 Cal 116', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90300/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56095ee0e4b01497112c8dde', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** GRP constable's s.161 bribery conviction affirmed; Rs.5 gratification proved by eyewitnesses.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1955-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1955-0002)

## Calcutta Police Constable v. Commissioner of Police and Others (CW-1964-0005)

**Record:** CW-1964-0005 (compiler id CWC-1149); case GAP3-28-002
**Title:** Calcutta Police Constable v. Commissioner of Police and Others
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Banerjee
**Case number / citation:** Matter No. 463 of 1963 / AIR 1967 Cal 381
**Judgment:** 1964-12-04 (1964, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1962-03-02 (1962)
**Place:** Kolkata, West Bengal (district at time: Calcutta); city town: Kolkata; police station or unit: Calcutta Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Calcutta Police Act 1898 s.9-B(2); Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Calcutta Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kolkata man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. Constable was charged with wrongfully detaining a bullion merchant's guard on 2 March 1962, seizing a 234-tola gold bar without authority and without reporting it, and misappropriating 134 tolas of it. The departmental enquiry found the detention/seizure and misappropriation charges proved, and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed him on 14 March 1963, affirmed by the Commissioner of Police in appeal. The court rejected challenges based on the dismissing authority's competence under section 9-B(2) of the Calcutta Police Act, natural justice, identity of the guard, and reliance on admissions. It held there was no substance in the Rule and discharged it, upholding the dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Further apart from the admission, evidence was led to prove the charges against the petitioner. That evidence appealed to the disciplinary authority. Therefore, even though the admission, said to have been made by the petitioner, was treated as supporting the evidence against the petitioner that does not vitiate the proceeding.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218131/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/862955/ram-subhak-ojha-vs-commissioner-police)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** Calcutta Police Constable v. Commissioner of Police and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1964-12-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1967 Cal 381', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218131/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/862955/ram-subhak-ojha-vs-commissioner-police', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Calcutta HC discharged the Rule; dismissal of Calcutta Police constable for wrongful detention, unauthorised gold seizure and misappropriation upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1964-0005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1964-0005)

## West Bengal Police Sub-Inspector v. State of West Bengal and Others (CW-1969-0002)

**Record:** CW-1969-0002 (compiler id CWC-1151); case GAP3-28-004
**Title:** West Bengal Police Sub-Inspector v. State of West Bengal and Others
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: D. Basu
**Case number / citation:** Civil Rule No. 1305(W) of 1965 / AIR 1970 Cal 384
**Judgment:** 1969-05-29 (1969, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1960-01-01 (1960)
**Place:** South 24 Parganas, West Bengal (district at time: 24 Parganas); city town: Alipore; police station or unit: West Bengal Police, 24 Parganas (District Enforcement); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Police Act 1861 s.29; Constitution Art. 311(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, West Bengal Police, 24 Parganas (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Sub-Inspector, District Enforcement Officer of 24 Parganas, refused to comply with a December 1959 transfer order to Nadia, was convicted under section 29 of the Police Act by the Alipore Magistrate on 25 November 1961 (fine Rs 100), and his appeal and revision failed. The SP 24 Parganas recommended dismissal, effected on 2 July 1964 with DIG approval. The court held a section 29 conviction is a conviction on a criminal charge under proviso (a) to Article 311(2), so no inquiry was needed before dismissal. The Rule was made absolute only to the extent of granting full emoluments for the pre-dismissal period 2 January 1960 to 2 July 1964. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Consequently, the instant case would fall under the purview of Proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56886/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/createfile/859505/tp:pd)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 19
**display title redacted:** West Bengal Police Sub-Inspector v. State of West Bengal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1969-05-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'AIR 1970 Cal 384', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56886/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/createfile/859505/tp:pd', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Calcutta HC upheld dismissal founded on s.29 Police Act conviction via Art 311(2)(a); relief limited to back emoluments for 2 Jan 1960-2 Jul 1964.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1969-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1969-0002)

## The State v. Howrah Police Inspector (CW-1990-0004)

**Record:** CW-1990-0004 (compiler id CWC-0459); case SWCUSTOD-032
**Title:** The State v. Howrah Police Inspector
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Ajit K. Sengupta
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal u/s 378(1) CrPC with Criminal Revision (vs Addl. Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah order dated 20.08.1985) / 1990 Cri LJ 2093
**Judgment:** 1990-05-14 (1990, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-02-26 (1980)
**Place:** Howrah, West Bengal; city town: Howrah; police station or unit: Golabari PS; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Conviction entered by High Court (conviction_by_hc)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II/34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Golabari PS, Howrah; Sub-Inspector, Golabari PS, Howrah; Constable, Golabari PS, Howrah (3 in record)
**Victims:** Howrah man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 7 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Calcutta High Court allowed the State appeal and complainant revision against the 1985 acquittals and convicted an Inspector, Sub-Inspector and Constable of Golabari PS for beating railway employee a Howrah man to death in custody on 26 February 1980. The Court held the assault was made to extort a confession, rejecting the alibi and fall-from-roof defence on eyewitness and medical evidence of ruptured kidney and liver. It sentenced two officers to 7 years RI and one to 5 years RI with fines payable to the complainant, affirming the fourth accused's acquittal. The judgment records the torture as an illegal extra-judicial execution in the lock-up. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> This case demonstrates the extent of inhuman torture and degrading treatment meted to a prisoner in police lock-up resulting in his illegal or extra-judicial execution.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1676166/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1149295/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** The State v. Howrah Police Inspector
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1990-05-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '1990 Cri LJ 2093', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1676166/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1149295/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC set aside acquittals and convicted 3 Golabari PS policemen u/s 304-II/34.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction entered by High Court.

[Open CW-1990-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1990-0004)

## Cooch Behar Police Constable v. State of West Bengal and Others (CW-1996-0015)

**Record:** CW-1996-0015 (compiler id CWC-1148); case GAP3-28-001
**Title:** Cooch Behar Police Constable v. State of West Bengal and Others
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Satyabrata Sinha; Satya Narayan Chakraborty
**Case number / citation:** Appeal No. 1136 of 1990 (arising from C.R. No. 3878(W) of 1983) / (1998) 1 DMC 450
**Judgment:** 1996-07-04 (1996, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-01-01 (1980)
**Place:** Cooch Behar, West Bengal; city town: Cooch Behar; police station or unit: DAP, Cooch Behar; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 494; WB Government Servants Conduct Rules 1959 r.30; WB Government Services (Duties, Rights and Obligations) Rules 1980 r.5(4)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, DAP, Cooch Behar (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable of DAP Cooch Behar was charge-sheeted on 22 April 1980 for contracting a second marriage during his first wife's lifetime, and dismissed from service on 30 April 1981. In his written defence he stated he had remarried with his first wife's written consent, which the court treated as an admission of the charge. The Division Bench held the admitted bigamy was both an offence under section 494 IPC and misconduct, that a fact admitted need not be proved, and that wrong mentioning of the conduct rule caused no prejudice. It dismissed the appeal against the Single Judge's rejection of his writ, leaving the dismissal intact.

> As noticed hereinbefore, the appellant in his written statement categorically admitted the misconduct committed by him. His only defence was that he married Smt. Sefali De Chowdhury with the written consent of his first wife. It is not in dispute that in terms of the provision of Section 494 of IPC, Bigamy is a penal offence as well as in terms of the provision of the W.B. Government Servant Conduct Rules no employee is permitted to commit misconduct or a penal offence with the consent of any other person.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1820615/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56095fcfe4b01497112cb31b)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Cooch Behar Police Constable v. State of West Bengal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1996-07-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(1998) 1 DMC 450', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1820615/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56095fcfe4b01497112cb31b', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Calcutta HC Division Bench dismissed the constable's appeal; dismissal for admitted bigamy (IPC 494 offence and conduct-rule misconduct) stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-1996-0015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1996-0015)

## Panskura Man vs State of West Bengal and Others (CW-1997-0001)

**Record:** CW-1997-0001 (compiler id CWC-0428); case WESTBE-005
**Title:** Panskura Man vs State of West Bengal and Others
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee; Asok Kumar Chakravarty
**Case number / citation:** C.C. No. 18207 (W) of 1995 / 1997 Cri LJ 1762
**Judgment:** 1997-01-31 (1997, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-10-17 (1994)
**Place:** Purba Medinipur, West Bengal (district at time: Midnapore); city town: Panskura; police station or unit: Panskura Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (then Officer-in-Charge), Panskura Police Station; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Panskura Police Station (2 in record)
**Victims:** Panskura man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. A Panskura man, arrested with four others on 8 October 1994, was kept in the Panskura police lock-up without production before a Magistrate, mercilessly tortured, and died on 17 October 1994; police claimed he jumped from a running jeep. On a letter-petition by the Lawyers' Forum for Human Rights, a Division Bench rejected the police story, noting the post-mortem showed death from subdural haemorrhage caused by a hard blunt substance and that the police affidavits were full of contradictions. The court allowed the writ, directed the State to pay Rs 1 lakh divided equally between both widows within two months, and ordered every police station in the State to maintain lock-up and diet registers. Departmental proceedings against SI and ASI were already pending.

> We have no hesitation in holding that this Court was sought to be misled from the very beginning by filing affidavits which could not be relied on as the same were full of contradictions. It is very unfortunate that the post-mortem report which clearly suggested that the death was due to hitting the head with some hard substance.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1910337/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/853371/lawyers-forum-for-human-rights-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** Panskura Man vs State of West Bengal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '1997-01-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '1997 Cri LJ 1762', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1910337/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/853371/lawyers-forum-for-human-rights-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs 1 lakh to two widows for custodial-death beating; statewide registers ordered.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-1997-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1997-0001)

## West Bengal Man vs State of West Bengal and Others (CW-2000-0011)

**Record:** CW-2000-0011 (compiler id CWC-1112); case GAP3-128-003
**Title:** West Bengal Man vs State of West Bengal and Others
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: G. B. Pattanaik; R. C. Lahoti
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 467 of 2000 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 1571 of 1999) / (2000) 9 SCC 404; JT 2000 (4) SC 409
**Judgment:** 2000-01-21 (2000, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** West Bengal; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** West Bengal man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 70,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for the custodial death of a West Bengal man in West Bengal from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 70,000. The Court, hearing only the quantum question on limited notice, accepted the Calcutta High Court's custodial-death findings and held Rs. 20,000 too meagre for the widow's sustenance. It directed the State to pay the balance Rs. 50,000 to the widow within eight weeks, leaving the rest of the High Court's directions unaltered. No officer is named and no district or station is stated in the SC order, which records no independent liability reasoning. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The counsel for the State of West Bengal on the other hand contends that the Human Rights Commission of the State has considered the matter from all angles including the profession which was being pursued by the deceased before his custodial death and therefore the compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- is adequate. Having considered the rival submissions and on the findings arrived at by the High Court of Calcutta we think it appropriate to enhance the compensation to Rs. 70,000/-.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1738694/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/675314/amitadyuti-kumar-vs-state-w-b-ors)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 6
**display title redacted:** West Bengal Man vs State of West Bengal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2000-01-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 70,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2000) 9 SCC 404; JT 2000 (4) SC 409', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1738694/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/675314/amitadyuti-kumar-vs-state-w-b-ors', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC accepted HC custodial-death findings and enhanced compensation Rs.20,000 to Rs.70,000 against the State; officers/district unstated.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2000-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2000-0011)

## State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Barrackpore Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (retired) (CW-2001-0017)

**Record:** CW-2001-0017 (compiler id CWC-1154); case GAP3-29-003
**Title:** State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Barrackpore Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (retired)
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Tarun Chatterjee; Hrishikesh Banerji
**Case number / citation:** W.P.S.T. No. 486 of 2000 / 2001 (3) CHN 740; 106 CWN 99; (2001) 09 CAL CK 0005
**Judgment:** 2001-09-21 (2001, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-10-09 (1980)
**Place:** North 24 Parganas, West Bengal; city town: Barrackpore; police station or unit: Police Training College, Barrackpore (CID, West Bengal); force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** WB Services (DCRB) Rules 1971 r.10(1); WB Government Servants Conduct Rules 1959 rr.3-4
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police (retired), Criminal Investigation Department, West Bengal (1 in record)
**Victims:** Barrackpore man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. While Chief Law Instructor at the Police Training College, Barrackpore, DySP \[name withheld\] demanded Rs. 6,000 from Cadet SI on 9 October 1980 on the false plea of placating the DIG (Training) and accepted it on 13 October 1980, besides attempting a further Rs. 4,000. A Vigilance Commission enquiry found him guilty of both charges, and the Governor permanently withheld 50% of his pension with effect from 1 March 1982. The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal set aside the cut, but the Calcutta High Court held Rule 10 of the WBS (DCRB) Rules, 1971 permits post-retirement pension action and set aside the Tribunal's order. The Governor's pension-withholding order was affirmed on 21 September 2001. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For the reasons aforesaid the impugned order of Tribunal is set aside. The writ application filed before us stands allowed. The order of the Governor withholding pension in the manner indicated above is hereby affirmed.

**Sources (3):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/839487/state-of-west-bengal-and-others-appellant-hash-gobinda-chandra-mukherjee-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=501002135000&title=state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-gobinda-chandra-mukherjee); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e120e3607dba3896618f42)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 15
**display title redacted:** State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Barrackpore Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (retired)
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2001-09-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2001 (3) CHN 740; 106 CWN 99; (2001) 09 CAL CK 0005', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/839487/state-of-west-bengal-and-others-appellant-hash-gobinda-chandra-mukherjee-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=501002135000&title=state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-vs-gobinda-chandra-mukherjee', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e120e3607dba3896618f42', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment text verified; Governor's 50% pension cut for DySP's bribery restored.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2001-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2001-0017)

## Kolkata Police Special Constable vs State of West Bengal (CW-2002-0013)

**Record:** CW-2002-0013 (compiler id CWC-0747); case GAP6-006
**Title:** Kolkata Police Special Constable vs State of West Bengal
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: P.K. Biswas; S.K. Banerjee
**Case number / citation:** (2002) 3 CALLT 618
**Judgment:** 2002-05-21 (2002, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1992-09-23 (1992)
**Place:** Kolkata, West Bengal; city town: Kolkata; police station or unit: Phool Bagan Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 376; IPC 366
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Constable, Phool Bagan Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Kolkata woman, age 27 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. Around 2 a.m. on 23 September 1992, Special Constable of Phool Bagan Police Station, in plain clothes, twice came to pavement-dweller the complainant's jhupri on CIT Road, then forcibly took her in a police vehicle to the station, confined her in a mezzanine barrack room and raped her until about 4:40 a.m. The trial court sentenced him to life under Section 376 IPC with concurrent six years RI under Section 366 IPC. The Division Bench dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence, while acquitting the two co-appellants under Section 366 IPC for want of proof of participation. Trial reference: Sessions Trial No.1(1) of 1993, Phool Bagan P.S. Case No.108 dated 23.09.1992. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The appeal preferred by the convict/appellant \[name withheld\] is dismissed on contest and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge, so far as it relates to convict/appellant \[name withheld\] is, hereby, affirmed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/536057/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_rape_sexual_assault
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial torture', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**display title redacted:** Kolkata Police Special Constable vs State of West Bengal
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Calcutta High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Calcutta High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2002) 3 CALLT 618', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2002-05-21', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2002) 3 CALLT 618', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/536057/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial rape sexual assault
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Life term u/s 376 (+6y u/s 366) of Special Constable for barrack rape affirmed; co-accused acquitted.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': 27, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'the complainant'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2002-0013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2002-0013)

## Dum Dum Man vs State of West Bengal And Ors. (CW-2004-0006)

**Record:** CW-2004-0006 (compiler id CWC-0748); case GAP6-007
**Title:** Dum Dum Man vs State of West Bengal And Ors.
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Asok Kumar Ganguly; Tapan Kumar Dutt
**Case number / citation:** (2005) 1 CALLT 261
**Judgment:** 2004-08-18 (2004, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2002-07-05 (2002)
**Place:** North 24 Parganas, West Bengal; city town: Dum Dum; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Dum Dum man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. At about 1 a.m. on the night of 4-5 July 2002, a 15-20 member police party dragged Central Excise Inspector from his Dum Dum home and returned him only at 11 a.m.; he later died by suicide, which his widow linked to the arrest and interrogation. The Division Bench held the high-handedness clearly established, a Dum Dum man under arrest throughout, and the D.K. Basu guidelines, having the force of law, admittedly not followed at all, invading the family's Article 21 privacy. Though no compensation was prayed for, the Court moulded relief and directed Rs.1 lakh within a fortnight as a deterrent, preserving the widow's right to sue the wrongdoers. Individual officers were not identified in the order. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> high-handedness of the police arresting late a Dum Dum man is clearly established in the facts of this case.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/201974/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Dum Dum Man vs State of West Bengal And Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2004-08-18', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2005) 1 CALLT 261', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/201974/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Midnight-arrest high-handedness established; D.K. Basu wholly violated; Rs.1L deterrent compensation to widow.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2004-0006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2004-0006)

## Howrah Man vs Secretary, Department of Home & Ors. (CW-2006-0011)

**Record:** CW-2006-0011 (compiler id CWC-0420); case WESTBE-001
**Title:** Howrah Man vs Secretary, Department of Home & Ors.
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Bhaskar Bhattacharya; Prabuddh Sankar Banerjee
**Case number / citation:** (2007) 1 CALLT 589 (HC); 2007 (1) CHN 351
**Judgment:** 2006-11-03 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1980-02-26 (1980)
**Place:** Howrah, West Bengal; city town: Howrah; police station or unit: Golabari Police Station, Howrah; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34; Constitution of India Art. 21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Golabari Police Station, Howrah; Police personnel, Golabari Police Station, Howrah; Police personnel, Golabari Police Station, Howrah (3 in record)
**Victims:** Howrah man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. The appellant's son, a railway employee in his twenties, was arrested on 26 February 1980 and beaten to death at Golabari police station, Howrah; police refused to register the family's complaint, forcing the father to approach the SDJM. The Sessions Court acquitted all accused policemen, but a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reversed the acquittal in 1990 and convicted three policemen under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, a finding the Supreme Court affirmed while unifying the sentences at five years' rigorous imprisonment each. After the victim's father was murdered at the instance of the convicted policemen, the victim's mother sought compensation. The Division Bench held the State vicariously liable for the custodial death, rejected the delay objection, and awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation plus Rs 10,000 costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> ends of justice will be met if we direct the State Government to pay a lump sum of Rs. 5 lakh to the appellant in addition to the fines realised from the convicted persons

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1149295/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56096051e4b01497112cc667); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/882823/padma-rani-thakur-vs-secretary-department)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**display title redacted:** Howrah Man vs Secretary, Department of Home & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-11-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2007) 1 CALLT 589 (HC); 2007 (1) CHN 351', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1149295/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56096051e4b01497112cc667', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/882823/padma-rani-thakur-vs-secretary-department', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Calcutta HC Division Bench awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation for 1980 custodial death at Golabari PS after convictions were affirmed by SC.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2006-0011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0011)

## Nandigram Man & Ors vs State of West Bengal & Ors (CW-2007-0014)

**Record:** CW-2007-0014 (compiler id CWC-0425); case SWDISPRO-002
**Title:** Nandigram Man & Ors vs State of West Bengal & Ors
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: S.S. Nijjar; Pinaki Chandra Ghose
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 8596(W) of 2007 / 2007 (4) CHN 842, 2007 SCC OnLine Cal 672
**Judgment:** 2007-11-16 (2007, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-03-14 (2007)
**Place:** Purba Medinipur, West Bengal; city town: Nandigram; police station or unit: Nandigram Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 14; Constitution of India Art. 19; Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226; Police Act 1861; Police Regulations Bengal 1943 Regulation 153; Police Regulations Bengal 1943 Regulation 154; Police Regulations Bengal 1943 Regulation 155; CrPC s.144
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Nandigram man; Nandigram man; Nandigram man; Nandigram man; Nandigram man; Nandigram woman; Nandigram man; Nandigram woman; Nandigram man; Nandigram man; Nandigram man; Nandigram man; Nandigram man; Nandigram woman, age 35; Nandigram woman, age 27; Nandigram woman (176 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 238 lakh (Rs 2,38,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. On 14 March 2007, West Bengal Police opened prolonged, indiscriminate gunfire on villagers protesting land acquisition in Nandigram, killing 14 persons, injuring 162, and sexually assaulting several women. Acting on writ petitions and suo motu proceedings, the Calcutta High Court held the police firing wholly unconstitutional, unjustified under the CrPC, Police Act, 1861, or Police Regulations Bengal, 1943, and struck down Regulation 155(b) as unconstitutional. Rejecting the State's plea of sovereign immunity, the High Court ordered the State of West Bengal to pay immediate compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to the next of kin of each deceased, not less than Rs. 1 lakh to each injured person, and Rs. 2 lakh to each identified rape victim. The Court also ordered the CBI to conduct an independent investigation and initiate criminal proceedings against responsible officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The action of the police department to open fire at Nandigram on 14.03.2007 was wholly unconstitutional and cannot be justified under any provision of the law.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1186017/); [amnesty.org](https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/asa200012008eng.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Protest policing', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** True
**court quote para:** 140
**display title redacted:** Nandigram Man & Ors vs State of West Bengal & Ors
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2007-11-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 23,800,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2007 (4) CHN 842, 2007 SCC OnLine Cal 672', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1186017/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/asa200012008eng.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Calcutta HC held Nandigram police firing wholly unconstitutional and illegal, awarding compensation to families of deceased, injured, and rape victims.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**victims redacted:** {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'male', 'descriptor': 'a man'}; {'age': 35, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}; {'age': 27, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}; {'age': None, 'gender': 'female', 'descriptor': 'a woman'}
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2007-0014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2007-0014)

## Kolkata Man v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (CW-2008-0023)

**Record:** CW-2008-0023 (compiler id CWC-0947); case GAP2-14-001
**Title:** Kolkata Man v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Girish Chandra Gupta; Kishore Kumar Prasad
**Case number / citation:** C.R.A. No. 628 of 2005 / (2008) 3 CALLT 345
**Judgment:** 2008-05-16 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-07-19 (1999)
**Place:** Kolkata, West Bengal; city town: Kolkata; police station or unit: Narcotics Control Bureau, Calcutta; force: central_armed
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** NDPS Act s.21; NDPS Act s.29; NDPS Act s.69; CrPC s.482
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer (P.W.4), Narcotics Control Bureau, Calcutta; Superintendent (P.W.7), Narcotics Control Bureau, Calcutta (2 in record)
**Victims:** Kolkata man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. On 19 July 1999 NCB officers intercepted a Kolkata man and Debashish Dutta at Central Restaurant, B.B. Ganguly Street, Calcutta; 570 grams of heroin was recovered from Dutta and nothing from a Kolkata man, though the arrest memo falsely showed recovery from him. The trial court convicted both men under Sections 21/29 NDPS Act with 10 years RI each, and a Kolkata man spent over 9 years in jail. The court held a Kolkata man was arrested groundlessly and coerced into signing a confessional statement drafted by P.W.4, that the officers acted otherwise than in good faith so Section 69 NDPS gave no protection, and that he was a victim of unlawful arrest and detention. Allowing the appeal, the court set aside the conviction and directed Rs. 1,00,000 token compensation within twelve weeks under its inherent powers, relying on Nilabati Behera, D.K. Basu and Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The appellant in this case was arrested groundlessly by the officers of NCB; the officers in further abuse of their power coerced the appellant to subscribe his signature to a confessional statement drafted by the P.W.4

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/893167/md-salim-akthar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-and-another/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 35
**display title redacted:** Kolkata Man v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2008-05-16', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '(2008) 3 CALLT 345', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/893167/md-salim-akthar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-and-another/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** NDPS acquittal with Rs.1L compensation for groundless arrest and coerced confession by NCB officers.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2008-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0023)

## Calcutta Police Constable v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (CW-2012-0025)

**Record:** CW-2012-0025 (compiler id CWC-1158); case GAP3-32-003
**Title:** Calcutta Police Constable v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee; Nishita Mhatre
**Case number / citation:** W.P.S.T. No. 21 of 2012
**Judgment:** 2012-02-08 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kolkata, West Bengal; city town: Kolkata; police station or unit: Calcutta Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Police Regulations of Calcutta 1968 Chap 19 Reg 11
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Calcutta Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Calcutta Police constable had at least 31 punishments, mostly for habitual unauthorised absence, before a disciplinary proceeding found him guilty and recommended dismissal. His departmental appeal was dismissed as time-barred with no explanation for delay, and the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal held the punishment not disproportionate given his past conduct. The Calcutta High Court noted he had remained absent throughout the proceedings without cooperating and endorsed the Tribunal's proportionality view. The writ application was dismissed on 8 February 2012 with no order as to costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> We find no merit in the writ application and the same, thus, stands dismissed without any order as to costs.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81310704/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e4ad4a93261aa7947d7c); WBAT order dated 4 Dec 2009 in O.A. No. 335 of 2005
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Calcutta Police Constable v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-02-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'W.P.S.T. No. 21 of 2012', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81310704/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e4ad4a93261aa7947d7c', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'WBAT order dated 4 Dec 2009 in O.A. No. 335 of 2005', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment text verified (Indian Kanoon); dismissal of habitual-absentee constable upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0025)

## BSF Constable vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2012-0034)

**Record:** CW-2012-0034 (compiler id CWC-1257); case GAP3-77-006
**Title:** BSF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Madhya Pradesh High Court; judges: Rajendra Menon
**Case number / citation:** Writ Petition No. 1024 of 2000 / (2012) 09 MP CK 0278
**Judgment:** 2012-09-11 (2012, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-06-29 (1999)
**Place:** West Bengal; police station or unit: E Coy, 195 Battalion BSF; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** BSF Act 1968 s.20(a); BSF Act 1968 s.20(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, E Coy, 195 Battalion BSF (1 in record)
**Victims:** West Bengal man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. BSF Constable was charge-sheeted for slapping Assistant Commandant a West Bengal man, his Company Commandant, on the left cheek and threatening to shoot and kill him without provocation on 29 June 1999 at about 19:45 hours. A Summary Security Force Court convened on 5 July 1999 established his guilt and the Commandant dismissed him from service the same day. An earlier dismissal of his writ on jurisdiction grounds was set aside by a Division Bench in 2007 and the matter was heard on merits. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held the assault on a superior officer was proved in a properly conducted departmental inquiry, the cited judgments had no relevance to the peculiar facts, and dismissed the petition, sustaining the dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Accordingly, finding the petitioner - a Member of the Disciplined Armed Force, to have been punished for the act of assaulting a Superior Officer, which has been proved in a properly conducted departmental inquiry, I see no reason to interfere into the matter.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/603895/ramashray-prasad-dwivedi-vs-the-union-of-india-and-others/); (2012) 09 MP CK 0278
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** BSF Constable vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2012-09-11', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madhya Pradesh High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2012) 09 MP CK 0278', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/603895/ramashray-prasad-dwivedi-vs-the-union-of-india-and-others/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': '(2012) 09 MP CK 0278', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** MP HC upheld SSFC dismissal of BSF constable for slapping and threatening to kill his Company Commandant; purely internal-discipline matter, incident in West Bengal per jurisdiction discussion.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2012-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2012-0034)

## State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kolkata Armed Police Sepoy (CW-2013-0017)

**Record:** CW-2013-0017 (compiler id CWC-0652); case SWOTHERM-016
**Title:** State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kolkata Armed Police Sepoy
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: K.S. Radhakrishnan; A.K. Sikri
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 10729 of 2013 / (2014) 3 SCC 610; AIR 2014 SC 405
**Judgment:** 2013-11-28 (2013, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-11-12 (2003)
**Place:** North 24 Parganas, West Bengal; city town: Khardah; police station or unit: 2nd Battalion, Kolkata Armed Police (on deputation to Traffic Department, Kolkata Police); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 392; IPC 395; IPC 412; Arms Act s.25; Arms Act s.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sepoy, 2nd Battalion, Kolkata Armed Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Sepoy (2nd Battalion KAP, on deputation to Kolkata Traffic Police) was arrested on 26 November 2003 for complicity in a dacoity (Khardah PS Case 383, Sections 392/395/412 IPC and Arms Act), suspended and dismissed after a departmental enquiry found gross misconduct. Though acquitted by the Sessions Court, Barrackpore, he won reinstatement from the WB Administrative Tribunal, affirmed by the Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court held under the Police Regulations of Calcutta 1968 that criminal acquittal is no bar to departmental punishment, allowed the State's appeal and set aside the reinstatement.

> The Tribunal as well as the High Court have not considered the above-mentioned provision and have committed a mistake in holding that since the respondent was acquitted by a Criminal Court of the same charges, reinstatement was automatic. We find it difficult to support the finding recorded by the Tribunal which was confirmed by the High Court. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16056318/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af33e4b0149711415cc2)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 18
**display title redacted:** State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kolkata Armed Police Sepoy
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2013-11-28', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2014) 3 SCC 610; AIR 2014 SC 405', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16056318/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af33e4b0149711415cc2', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC judgment text verified on Indian Kanoon; Tribunal reinstatement set aside, dacoity-accused sepoy's dismissal sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2013-0017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2013-0017)

## Kolkata Police Constable (Traffic) v. State of West Bengal (CW-2014-0026)

**Record:** CW-2014-0026 (compiler id CWC-1156); case GAP3-32-001
**Title:** Kolkata Police Constable (Traffic) v. State of West Bengal
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Nishita Mhatre; Tapash Mookherjee
**Case number / citation:** W.P.S.T. No. 143 of 2013 / (2014) 4 CHN 487; (2014) 04 CAL CK 0026
**Judgment:** 2014-04-08 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2005-05-04 (2005)
**Place:** Kolkata, West Bengal; city town: Kolkata; police station or unit: Kolkata Police (Traffic); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (Traffic), Kolkata Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. Kolkata Police traffic constable absented himself from 4 May 2005 after medical rest only until 6 May 2005, sending no intimation and evading examination by the Kolkata Police doctor while producing a private angina certificate from a consulting obstetrician and gynaecologist. An ex-parte enquiry led to his dismissal on 12 June 2007, affirmed in appeal and review and by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. The Calcutta High Court disbelieved the medical defence and stressed his eight prior punishments for similar misconduct. The writ petition was dismissed on 8 April 2014 with no order as to costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Considering the entire material on record, in our opinion, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, especially since he has been punished on eight occasions earlier for the similar acts of misconduct.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/872516/prollad-das-appellant-hash-state-of-west-bengal-respondent/); WBAT order dated 17 Dec 2012 in O.A. No. 661 of 2012
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 9
**display title redacted:** Kolkata Police Constable (Traffic) v. State of West Bengal
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-04-08', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2014) 4 CHN 487; (2014) 04 CAL CK 0026', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/872516/prollad-das-appellant-hash-state-of-west-bengal-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'WBAT order dated 17 Dec 2012 in O.A. No. 661 of 2012', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment text verified; Kolkata Police constable's dismissal for 700+ days' absence upheld.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0026)

## Kolkata Woman & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (CW-2014-0040)

**Record:** CW-2014-0040 (compiler id CWC-1159); case GAP3-32-004
**Title:** Kolkata Woman & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Jayanta Kumar Biswas; Ishan Chandra Das
**Case number / citation:** W.P.S.T. No. 109 of 2013 with CAN No. 8104 of 2013 / (2014) 12 CAL CK 0101
**Judgment:** 2014-12-19 (2014, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-12-15 (2000)
**Place:** Kolkata, West Bengal; city town: Kolkata; police station or unit: Kolkata Police Force; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Police Regulations of Calcutta 1968 Chap 19 Reg 8; Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 s.21
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Kolkata Police Force (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Kolkata Police constable pleaded guilty to unauthorised absence from 15 December 2000, with 16 prior punishments and 164 days of extraordinary leave on record, and was dismissed with effect from 6 April 2001. His legal representatives later sought rescission citing a December 2011 criminal acquittal, but the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal dismissed the 2012 original application. The Calcutta High Court held the Tribunal could not condone the nine-year delay, that Regulation 8 permits dismissal for absence, and that the penalty was not shockingly disproportionate. The WPST was dismissed on 19 December 2014. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> For these reasons, we affirm the Tribunal order dismissing the OA and dismiss the WPST.

**Sources (3):** [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e3c64a93261a672b94d1); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/873436/maya-rani-das-appellant-hash-the-state-of-west-bengal-respondent/); WBAT order dated 10 Sep 2012 in O.A. No. 748 of 2012
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 26
**display title redacted:** Kolkata Woman & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2014-12-19', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2014) 12 CAL CK 0101', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e3c64a93261a672b94d1', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/873436/maya-rani-das-appellant-hash-the-state-of-west-bengal-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'WBAT order dated 10 Sep 2012 in O.A. No. 748 of 2012', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment text verified via CourtKutchehry mirror; dismissal upheld, WPST dismissed as time-barred.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2014-0040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2014-0040)

## West Bengal Police Constable v. State of West Bengal (CW-2015-0019)

**Record:** CW-2015-0019 (compiler id CWC-0948); case GAP2-15-001
**Title:** West Bengal Police Constable v. State of West Bengal
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: S. Chatterjee; Nishita Mhatre
**Case number / citation:** CRA 310 of 2008 / (2015) 01 CAL CK 0031
**Judgment:** 2015-01-29 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-09-04 (2003)
**Place:** Hooghly, West Bengal; city town: Uttarpara; police station or unit: Uttarpara Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, West Bengal Police (vehicle-check duty, Ballykhal, G.T. Road, Uttarpara) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Uttarpara resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** imprisonment; max 6.83 yrs
**Sentence type:** imprisonment (imprisonment)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. Around 0.30 a.m. on 4 September 2003 constable, on routine two-wheeler checking duty at Ballykhal on G.T. Road, Uttarpara, blocked the road to stop a yellow Hero Honda motorcycle that had sped past the first picket and fired a shot from his service revolver, killing the rider. The trial court convicted him under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment plus Rs. 10,000 fine on 18 April 2008. The court held there was no dispute he was on duty and that he fired in good faith in due discharge of duty without intent to kill, so the act fell under Exception 3 to Section 300 IPC. It set aside the murder conviction, convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC instead, and held the 6 years 10 months already undergone commensurate, ordering release if not required in any other case. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside. Instead, he is convicted under Section 304 Part II.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/871382/purnendu-samanta-appellant-hash-state-of-west-bengal-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 22
**display title redacted:** West Bengal Police Constable v. State of West Bengal
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Calcutta High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Calcutta High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': '(2015) 01 CAL CK 0031', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2015-01-29', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': '(2015) 01 CAL CK 0031', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/871382/purnendu-samanta-appellant-hash-state-of-west-bengal-respondent/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** On-duty fatal shooting reduced from murder to s.304-II; 6y10m undergone held sufficient.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2015-0019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0019)

## Kolkata Man and Another vs The State of West Bengal and Others (CW-2015-0003)

**Record:** CW-2015-0003 (compiler id CWC-0423); case WESTBE-004
**Title:** Kolkata Man and Another vs The State of West Bengal and Others
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Dipankar Datta
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 33241 (W) of 2013
**Judgment:** 2015-03-10 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2012-04-12 (2012)
**Place:** Kolkata, West Bengal; city town: Kolkata; police station or unit: Purba Jadavpur Police Station, Kolkata Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; IPC 509; IT Act 2000 s.66A; IPC 500; IPC 114
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (R-4), Purba Jadavpur Police Station, Kolkata Police; Additional Officer-in-Charge (R-5), Purba Jadavpur Police Station, Kolkata Police (2 in record)
**Victims:** Kolkata man; Kolkata man (2 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. Jadavpur University professor a Kolkata man and his neighbour a Kolkata man were manhandled by a mob and then arrested by Purba Jadavpur police on the night of 12 April 2012 for circulating an email cartoon featuring the Chief Minister, spending the night in custody for bailable and non-cognizable offences. The State defended the detention as protective custody and rejected the WBHRC recommendation of Rs 50,000 compensation each plus departmental action. The Calcutta High Court held the arrests were in brazen violation of law, called the protective-custody plea a bogey, and upheld the WBHRC recommendation by awarding Rs 50,000 each plus Rs 50,000 costs. It directed disciplinary proceedings against the two respondent officers (R-4 and R-5, names redacted in the reported text) to be initiated within a month and taken to a logical conclusion. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Relief claimed is moulded by declaring that the petitioners' human rights were indeed violated by public servants; consequently, the State Government shall adequately compensate the petitioners. They shall be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- each as compensatory relief, to be released within a month from date of service of a certified copy of this judgment and order.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38644431/); [punjabtimes.com.au](https://punjabtimes.com.au/2015/03/11/hc-directs-mamata-govt-to-compensate-ju-prof-for-arrest/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 71
**display title redacted:** Kolkata Man and Another vs The State of West Bengal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-03-10', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 33241 (W) of 2013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38644431/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://punjabtimes.com.au/2015/03/11/hc-directs-mamata-govt-to-compensate-ju-prof-for-arrest/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs 50,000 each for illegal arrest over email cartoon; disciplinary proceedings directed.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2015-0003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0003)

## Uttarpara Woman vs The State of West Bengal and Others (CW-2015-0008)

**Record:** CW-2015-0008 (compiler id CWC-0422); case WESTBE-003
**Title:** Uttarpara Woman vs The State of West Bengal and Others
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Tapabrata Chakraborty
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 8925 (W) of 2009
**Judgment:** 2015-07-17 (2015, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-09-04 (2003)
**Place:** Hooghly, West Bengal; city town: Uttarpara; police station or unit: Uttarpara Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226; IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (C-1172), Uttarpara Police Station, Hooghly (1 in record)
**Victims:** Uttarpara man, age 35 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. On 4 September 2003 a Uttarpara man (35) was riding home on G.T. Road when he failed to stop at a night check; police constable shot him dead with his service revolver and then fabricated a firearm injury on himself to plead private defence. A Sessions Court convicted \[name withheld\] of murder with life imprisonment in April 2008, and a departmental enquiry held the firing intentional, excessive and unjustified; the State still rejected the mother's compensation claim. The Calcutta High Court held the infringement of the fundamental right established through the criminal verdict, rejected the State's limitation and scheme objections, and directed the State to pay a lump sum of Rs 3 lakh within eight weeks. On the mother's intra-court appeal a Division Bench in December 2022 upheld the findings and enhanced compensation by a further Rs 5 lakh (total Rs 8 lakh).

> In the instant case, the infringement of fundamental right stands established inasmuch as the petitioner’s son has been murdered by a police personnel and the same stands proved through the verdict given by the competent criminal forum and furthermore in the instant case the sufferings of the petitioner has assumed more gruesome dimension since the perpetrator of the crime is a "man in uniform".

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86219018/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127584471/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84566491/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** disproportionate_force
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Uttarpara Woman vs The State of West Bengal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['court_quote'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2015-07-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 8925 (W) of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86219018/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127584471/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84566491/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** disproportionate force
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs 3 lakh compensation for unjustified police shooting; Article 21 violation held established.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2015-0008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2015-0008)

## State of West Bengal & Ors. v. State Armed Police Constable (CW-2016-0004)

**Record:** CW-2016-0004 (compiler id CWC-0653); case SWOTHERM-017
**Title:** State of West Bengal & Ors. v. State Armed Police Constable
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Nishita Mhatre; Rakesh Tiwari
**Case number / citation:** WPST No. 20 of 2016 / 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 4259
**Judgment:** 2016-08-03 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-10-09 (2007)
**Place:** Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal; city town: Raiganj; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 419; IPC 420; IPC 120-B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, State Armed Police, West Bengal (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

State Armed Police constable, posted at Raiganj, was accused in Raiganj PS Case 383/2007 (Sections 419/420/120-B IPC) over impersonation to procure constable employment, and was dismissed in January 2012 after a departmental enquiry for tarnishing the police image. Though honourably acquitted in the criminal trial, the Division Bench followed State of WB v. \[name withheld\] and held there is no provision under the Police Regulations to reinstate an employee acquitted of a criminal charge. The State's petition was allowed and the Tribunal's reinstatement order quashed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> However, there is no provision under the Police Regulations to reinstate an employee who has been acquitted of a criminal charge. We do not, therefore, find that the Tribunal was correct, in allowing the original application.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105609604/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/policeman-dismissed-service-not-entitled-reinstatement-acquittal-criminal-case-calcutta-hc-read-judgment)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 23
**display title redacted:** State of West Bengal & Ors. v. State Armed Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-08-03', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2016 SCC OnLine Cal 4259', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105609604/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/policeman-dismissed-service-not-entitled-reinstatement-acquittal-criminal-case-calcutta-hc-read-judgment', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC judgment text verified on Indian Kanoon; Tribunal reinstatement quashed, constable's dismissal sustained.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0004)

## BSF Non-Commissioned Officer vs The Union of India and Others (CW-2016-0032)

**Record:** CW-2016-0032 (compiler id CWC-1018); case GAP3-105-019
**Title:** BSF Non-Commissioned Officer vs The Union of India and Others
**Court:** Patna High Court; judges: Hemant Gupta; Ahsanuddin Amanullah
**Case number / citation:** Letters Patent Appeal No. 2115 of 2015
**Judgment:** 2016-08-30 (2016, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-06-01 (2007)
**Place:** Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal; city town: Patiram; police station or unit: 57th Battalion, BSF, Patiram (Kote/armoury); force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Non-Commissioned Officer, 57th Battalion, BSF (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

\[name withheld\], a BSF non-commissioned officer in charge of the Kote (armoury) of 57 Battalion at Patiram, was dismissed in July 2007 after an enquiry found Rs.53,440 concealed in an old register inside the Kote under his control. The court found he had been given a fair hearing with a defence assistant and that concealment of private money in the armoury was unauthorized. The court held that even on re-appreciation of the evidence no illegality tainted the punishment. The appeal was dismissed and the dismissal stands.

> even on re-appreciation of evidence, we find no illegality in the order of punishment against the appellant.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63374546/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** BSF Non-Commissioned Officer vs The Union of India and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2016-08-30', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Patna High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Patna High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'Letters Patent Appeal No. 2115 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63374546/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Patna HC Division Bench dismissed the LPA; dismissal of BSF NCO for concealing cash in the armoury stands.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2016-0032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2016-0032)

## Raninagar Man vs The State of West Bengal and Others (CW-2017-0009)

**Record:** CW-2017-0009 (compiler id CWC-0427); case WESTBE-004
**Title:** Raninagar Man vs The State of West Bengal and Others
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Debangsu Basak
**Case number / citation:** W.P. No. 16457 (W) of 2015
**Judgment:** 2017-09-06 (2017, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2014-02-15 (2014)
**Place:** Murshidabad, West Bengal; city town: Raninagar; police station or unit: Raninagar Police Station area (per interim order; final judgment names no PS); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Raninagar man, age 18 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

A Raninagar man (18) died in police custody on 15 February 2014, taken into custody in the afternoon and found dead the same evening, with the State claiming he hanged himself in the male-lockup latrine and opposing compensation citing a pending criminal proceeding. His widow \[name withheld\] limited her writ claim to compensation for custodial death. The Calcutta High Court held custody at the time of death was established, distinguished Dalbir Singh, and held the pending case did not denude her right to compensation. It directed the State to pay Rs 3 lakh within six weeks, leaving other heirs free to claim further compensation before the appropriate forum. District and police station are per the interim order and HRW report (Raninagar PS, Murshidabad); the final judgment names no station. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The death occurred at the time when the accused was admittedly in the custody of the police on such date. The explanation and justification of the cause of death are issues, which are to be considered in the appropriate criminal proceeding. The fact that one of the police officers has been proceeded against also will not denude the right of the petitioner to receive compensation for custodial death of her husband.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165043988/); [hrw.org](https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/india1216_web_0.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Raninagar Man vs The State of West Bengal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2017-09-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 300,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'W.P. No. 16457 (W) of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165043988/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/india1216_web_0.pdf', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Rs 3 lakh for custodial death; custody at death admitted, pending case no bar.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2017-0009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2017-0009)

## Union of India & Ors. v. CISF Constable (CW-2022-0034)

**Record:** CW-2022-0034 (compiler id CWC-1121); case GAP3-134-003
**Title:** Union of India & Ors. v. CISF Constable
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: D.Y. Chandrachud; Hima Kohli
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal Nos. 7939-7942 of 2022 / 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617
**Judgment:** 2022-11-23 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2007-11-07 (2007)
**Place:** Kolkata, West Bengal; city town: Kolkata; police station or unit: CISF Unit KoPT Kolkata; force: central_armed
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CISF Unit KoPT Kolkata (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Constable of the CISF Unit at Kolkata Port Trust was on armed C-shift guard at the Alif Nagar Scrap Yard, Garden Reach, on the night of 7/8 November 2007, when about 800 kg of copper wire was stolen from the yard and intercepted by local police outside the port. Charged with gross negligence and dereliction of duty plus an incorrigible record of eight punishments in thirteen years, he was dismissed on 27 November 2008 after inquiry, upheld in departmental appeal and revision. A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court substituted compulsory retirement and the Division Bench ordered reinstatement with back wages. The Supreme Court held the dismissal commensurate with the misconduct and past record, allowed the Union appeals, dismissed the constable appeals and restored the dismissal.

> In our view, the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent is commensurate with the gross negligence and dereliction of duty on his part.

**Sources (2):** [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/4532/4532_2022_1_1502_39982_Judgement_23-Nov-2022.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92994769/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 30
**display title redacted:** Union of India & Ors. v. CISF Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-11-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/4532/4532_2022_1_1502_39982_Judgement_23-Nov-2022.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92994769/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SC allowed UOI appeals; dismissal of CISF constable for guard-duty negligence restored.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2022-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0034)

## G.T. Road between Shrirampur and Belur Woman v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (CW-2022-0024)

**Record:** CW-2022-0024 (compiler id CWC-0563); case SWFAKEEN-028
**Title:** G.T. Road between Shrirampur and Belur Woman v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: T.S. Sivagnanam; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
**Case number / citation:** FMA No. 3613 of 2015 (Single Bench: W.P. No. 8925(W) of 2009)
**Judgment:** 2022-12-23 (2022, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-09-03 (2003)
**Place:** Hooghly, West Bengal; city town: G.T. Road between Shrirampur and Belur; police station or unit: West Bengal Police (vehicle-check party, Shrirampur-Belur; PS Case No. 128 of 2003); force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 302; Constitution Art. 21; Constitution Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, West Bengal Police (vehicle-check party) (1 in record)
**Victims:** G.T. Road between Shrirampur and Belur man, age 35 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. At midnight on 3 September 2003, 35-year-old scrap dealer a G.T. Road between Shrirampur and Belur man was shot dead by Constable on G.T. Road for riding past a vehicle check; the constable was separately convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. An Executive Magistrate inquiry under the Police Regulations of Bengal found the firing wholly unjustified, brutal and excessive, but no follow-up action was taken. The Single Bench awarded Rs 3,00,000 in 2015 (paid only in 2016); the Division Bench held the Article 21 violation indisputably established and directed an additional Rs 5,00,000 (Rs 8,00,000 total) within 60 days, noting thirteen years of delay. Compensation recorded here is the Rs 5,00,000 ordered by this judgment. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Executive Magistrate's report which has been referred to by the learned Single Bench clearly shows that the writ petitioner's son was done to death by police personnel using a firearm and there was absolutely no justification to use the firearm and the same was held to be brutal and excessive.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127584471/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** fake_encounter_extrajudicial_killing
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 7
**display title redacted:** G.T. Road between Shrirampur and Belur Woman v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2022-12-23', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'FMA No. 3613 of 2015 (Single Bench: W.P. No. 8925(W) of 2009)', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127584471/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Unjustified midnight shooting by constable (already life-convicted); HC added Rs 5L.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2022-0024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2022-0024)

## Mallarpur Boy vs State of West Bengal & Ors; Court on its own motion, In Re: Unnatural death of a teenaged boy in Mallarpur P. S., District - Birbhum (CW-2023-0007)

**Record:** CW-2023-0007 (compiler id CWC-0424); case WESTBE-001
**Title:** Mallarpur Boy vs State of West Bengal & Ors; Court on its own motion, In Re: Unnatural death of a teenaged boy in Mallarpur P. S., District - Birbhum
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: T. S. Sivagnanam; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
**Case number / citation:** WPA (P) 9 of 2020 with WPA (P) 13 of 2020 / 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 107
**Judgment:** 2023-04-04 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2020-10-29 (2020)
**Place:** Birbhum, West Bengal; city town: Mallarpur; police station or unit: Mallarpur Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 226; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 s.10; West Bengal Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2017 Rule 8
**Officers (gated display forms):** None named (0 in record)
**Victims:** Mallarpur boy, age 15 (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 15 lakh (Rs 15,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Calcutta High Court, hearing a PIL alongside a suo motu writ petition, adjudicated the unnatural death of a 15-year-old boy in the custody of Mallarpur Police Station, Birbhum in October 2020. Finding that the minor had been kept in police lockup in direct violation of the Juvenile and the West Bengal Juvenile, 2017, the Court termed the incident a "sorry state of affairs." The Court observed that the internal disciplinary punishment imposed on the stationed police personnel—stoppage of annual increment for one year—was thoroughly inadequate considering the gravity of the charge. The Division Bench directed the Government of West Bengal to pay Rs. 15 lakh compensation to the victim boy's family within 15 days and issued binding directions for statewide police sensitization. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> On going through the reports and the factual matrix, we find that there is a sorry state of affairs in which a young boy of 15 years died in police custody.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76171503/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/calcutta-high-court-state-govt-pay-15-lakh-compensation-family-teenager-died-police-custody-226477)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** brutality
**admin subcategory:** custodial_death
**allegations:** {'category': 'Custodial death', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 2
**display title redacted:** Mallarpur Boy vs State of West Bengal & Ors; Court on its own motion, In Re: Unnatural death of a teenaged boy in Mallarpur P. S., District - Birbhum
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-04-04', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,500,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 107', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76171503/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/calcutta-high-court-state-govt-pay-15-lakh-compensation-family-teenager-died-police-custody-226477', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** custodial death
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Calcutta High Court found 15-year-old died in Mallarpur PS custody, condemned inadequate departmental punishment, and ordered Rs. 15 lakh compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0007)

## Titagarh Man vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. (CW-2023-0040)

**Record:** CW-2023-0040 (compiler id CWC-0421); case WESTBE-002; aliases: CWC-0932; CWC-1473
**Title:** Titagarh Man vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Shampa Sarkar
**Case number / citation:** WPA 7882 of 2022 / 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 116, 2023 Supreme(Cal) 500
**Judgment:** 2023-04-25 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-03-09 (2022)
**Place:** North 24 Parganas, West Bengal; city town: Titagarh; police station or unit: Titagarh Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** Constitution of India Art. 21; Constitution of India Art. 226; CrPC s.151; NDPS Act 1985 s.21(c)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Titagarh Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Titagarh man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Calcutta High Court held that the arrest and detention of a Titagarh man by Titagarh police on March 9, 2022 demonstrated abuse of power and procedural irregularities. Shukla was picked up in plainclothes without notice following municipal elections, allegedly assaulted, and later booked under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, while police station CCTV footage was destroyed. The Court noted multiple lapses including unjustified invocation of Section 151 CrPC and destruction of material evidence. While declining to quash the chargesheet or transfer the investigation, the Court awarded Rs. 2,00,000 compensation to the petitioner family for violation of human dignity, recoverable from erring officers after an inquiry by the Commissioner of Barrackpore Police Commissionerate. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> However, the sequence of events and the discrepancies and irregularities which have been pointed out hereinabove indicate that the police authorities failed to discharge their duty in accordance with law. Disturbing features have been noticed by the court in the process of arrest of a Titagarh man on March 9, 2022, and further arrest on March 10, 2022 for commission of offence under the NDPS Act.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22026689/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/calcutta-high-court/calcutta-high-court-cctv-footage-destructed-lapses-arrest-2-lakh-compensation-man-implicated-falsely-ndps-act-police-227189); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/04/28/writ-petition-calcutta-high-court-police-atrocity-violation-fundamental-rights-compensation-scc-blog-legal-research-news/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/calcutta-high-court-orders-2-lakh-compensation-lapses-mans-arrest)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 37
**display title redacted:** Titagarh Man vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}; {'date': '2026-09-25', 'scope': 'Audit fix: duplicate record CW-2023-0011 (same court, case number and judgment date) merged into this record; its sources are kept here and its URL redirects here.'}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-04-25', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 116, 2023 Supreme(Cal) 500', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-25
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22026689/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/calcutta-high-court/calcutta-high-court-cctv-footage-destructed-lapses-arrest-2-lakh-compensation-man-implicated-falsely-ndps-act-police-227189', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/04/28/writ-petition-calcutta-high-court-police-atrocity-violation-fundamental-rights-compensation-scc-blog-legal-research-news/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Calcutta High Court found police abuse of power, illegal detention, and destruction of station CCTV footage, awarding Rs. 2 lakh compensation.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2023-0040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0040)

## The State of West Bengal & Ors. Versus Kolkata Police Police Constable (CW-2023-0025)

**Record:** CW-2023-0025 (compiler id CWC-0426); case WESTBE-003
**Title:** The State of West Bengal & Ors. Versus Kolkata Police Police Constable
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Debangsu Basak; Md. Shabbar Rashidi
**Case number / citation:** WP.ST 508 of 2013
**Judgment:** 2023-08-31 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1994-02-09 (1994)
**Place:** Malda, West Bengal; city town: Ratua; police station or unit: Kolkata Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 456; IPC 329; IPC 34; Arms Act 1959 s.25; Arms Act 1959 s.27; Police Regulations of Calcutta 1968 Chapter XIX Regulation 4; Constitution of India Art. 226
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Kolkata Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ratua man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Calcutta Police constable was dismissed from service following Departmental Proceeding No. 110 of 1999 for unauthorized absence from duty, failing to report his implication in a criminal case, and involvement in the murder of a Ratua man under Ratua Police Station in Malda on 9 February 1994. Although Roy was subsequently acquitted in the criminal trial (Sessions Trial No. 1(4) of 2008), the Commissioner of Police rejected his reinstatement plea under Regulation 4, Chapter XIX of the Police Regulations of Calcutta. The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal quashed the dismissal, but the Calcutta High Court allowed the State's writ petition and set aside the Tribunal's order. The High Court held that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically bar disciplinary punishment or mandate reinstatement, as the standards of proof and scope of charges differ, thereby restoring the constable's dismissal from service. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Therefore, in the light of discussions made hereinbefore, the impugned order passed by the tribunal in O.A. 1275 of 2012 is liable to be set aside. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28168571/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 35
**display title redacted:** The State of West Bengal & Ors. Versus Kolkata Police Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-08-31', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'WP.ST 508 of 2013', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28168571/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Calcutta High Court allowed State's writ petition and restored constable's dismissal from service for murder implication and unauthorized absence despite criminal trial acquittal.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0025)

## The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Calcutta Police Constable (CW-2023-0051)

**Record:** CW-2023-0051 (compiler id CWC-0954); case GAP2-16-001
**Title:** The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Calcutta Police Constable
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Debangsu Basak; Md. Shabbar Rashidi
**Case number / citation:** WP.ST 627 of 2009
**Judgment:** 2023-09-06 (2023, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2000-07-23 (2000)
**Place:** Kolkata, West Bengal; city town: Kolkata; police station or unit: Calcutta Police (Central Bank guard duty); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 170; IPC 419; IPC 511
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Calcutta Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

Constable of Calcutta Police was booked for Central Bank guard duty with firearms on 23 July 2000, left without informing any authority and without depositing his firearm, and remained absent until 8 August 2000, during which he was arrested on 31 July 2000 in an English Bazar impersonation case and held in custody until 7 August 2000. The disciplinary authority dismissed him on 22 September 2003, but the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement. The court held the charges stood established by the respondent's own admission, that abandoning guard duty and issued arms was serious dereliction unbecoming of police personnel, and that the enquiry complied with natural justice. It held the Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment, set aside the Tribunal order, and restored the dismissal. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> In such circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The order of dismissal from service of the respondent is restored.

**Sources (2):** [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6571589e7eb9195f0af3c66d); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69361740/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 32
**display title redacted:** The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Calcutta Police Constable
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2023-09-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': 'WP.ST 627 of 2009', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6571589e7eb9195f0af3c66d', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69361740/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Calcutta Police constable's dismissal restored for abandoning armed bank-guard duty and firearms.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2023-0051](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2023-0051)

## Suti Man v. State of West Bengal and Others (CW-2025-0034)

**Record:** CW-2025-0034 (compiler id CWC-0749); case SWILLEGA-076
**Title:** Suti Man v. State of West Bengal and Others
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Suvra Ghosh
**Case number / citation:** WPA 24157 of 2025
**Judgment:** 2025-11-14 (2025, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2025-04-15 (2025)
**Place:** Murshidabad, West Bengal; city town: Suti; police station or unit: Suti Police Station, Murshidabad; force: state_police
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Unknown, Suti Police Station, Murshidabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Suti man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 50,000
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

The Calcutta High Court (Justice Suvra Ghosh) ordered the State to pay Rs 50,000 within seven days to a Suti man @ a Suti man for 30 days of admittedly illegal detention. It was the admitted position that the petitioner, who had no nexus whatsoever with Suti PS Case No.404/2025 dated 15 April 2025 (though accused in other cases), was kept in custody in that case, with the State attributing it to inadvertent clerical mistake and unintentional error. The Court held such faultless 30-day custody unacceptable, granted compensation citing D.G. & I.G. of Police v. Prem Sagar (1999) 5 SCC 700, and made the order peremptory and mandatory. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> It is not acceptable that a person is detained in custody for as many as 30 days without any fault on his part merely on the ground of some clerical mistake or unintentional error.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12905607/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** illegal_detention_false_imprisonment
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** n/a
**display title redacted:** Suti Man v. State of West Bengal and Others
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2025-11-14', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': 'WPA 24157 of 2025', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12905607/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Calcutta HC short order verified verbatim on Indian Kanoon; admitted 30-day detention, Rs 50,000 in 7 days matches.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2025-0034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2025-0034)

## Serampore Man v. State of West Bengal and Anr. (CW-2026-0049)

**Record:** CW-2026-0049 (compiler id CWC-1160); case GAP3-36-001
**Title:** Serampore Man v. State of West Bengal and Anr.
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Arijit Banerjee; Apurba Sinha Ray
**Case number / citation:** CRA (DB) No. 25 of 2025 / 2026:CHC-AS:811-DB
**Judgment:** 2026-05-22 (2026, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2022-03-23 (2022)
**Place:** Hooghly, West Bengal; city town: Serampore; police station or unit: Serampore Women Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Adverse finding + compensation (adverse_finding_compensation)
**Sections:** IPC 376(2)(f); IPC 328; IPC 506; POCSO Act 2012 s.6
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Serampore Women Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Serampore man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** compensation only; Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000)
**Sentence type:** compensation only (compensation_only)

Professor a Serampore man was convicted by the Serampore trial court in July 2024 in Women PS Case No. 12 of 2022 and spent over four years in custody. The Calcutta High Court held the investigation by S.\[name withheld\] was perfunctory and biased: a vaginal swab was never sent for forensic examination, neutral residents were ignored, and key witnesses were omitted from the chargesheet. The Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and held his prolonged deprivation of liberty was directly precipitated by the IO's gross incompetence. It ordered Rs. 10 lakh compensation within three months, recoverable from the delinquent officials, and directed the DGP to consider disciplinary proceedings against the IO. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> The Investigating Officer (IO) failed to take even rudimentary steps to verify the allegations against Professor a Serampore man

**Sources (2):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/25/display-6watermark-1778205.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/calcutta-high-court/pratap-digal-v-state-of-west-bengal-2026chc-as811-db-reverse-burden-us-29-pocso-act-interested-1614641)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 60
**display title redacted:** Serampore Man v. State of West Bengal and Anr.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2026-05-22', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.', 'disposition': 'Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)', 'source': '2026:CHC-AS:811-DB', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/25/display-6watermark-1778205.pdf', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.verdictum.in/calcutta-high-court/pratap-digal-v-state-of-west-bengal-2026chc-as811-db-reverse-burden-us-29-pocso-act-interested-1614641', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** Primary HC PDF verified; conviction set aside, Rs.10L compensation for IO-caused wrongful incarceration.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Adverse finding + compensation.

[Open CW-2026-0049](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2026-0049)

# Trial-court convictions

1275 trial-court convictions of public servants (Special PC Act / CBI / Lokayukta / Sessions courts), each with its verification level and appeal status. Officials appear by gated display forms only.

## Sessions trial, Sessions Judge Anantapur Division (State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.); Criminal Appeal (SC) No.142/1961, decided 09-05-1963 (AIR 1964 SC 33) (t2w3-32-003)

**Record:** t2w3-32-003
**Title:** Sessions trial, Sessions Judge Anantapur Division (State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.); Criminal Appeal (SC) No.142/1961, decided 09-05-1963 (AIR 1964 SC 33)
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Anantapur Division (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions trial, Sessions Judge Anantapur Division (State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.); Criminal Appeal (SC) No.142/1961, decided 09-05-1963 (AIR 1964 SC 33)
**Conviction:** date not stated; between the January 1957 incident and the 1961 appeal to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court itself convicted under IPC 330 on 9 May 1963
**Incident date:** 1957-01-08 (1957)
**Place:** YSR Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 348; IPC 331; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Vempalli Police Station, Cuddapah District (undivided Andhra Pradesh)
**Victims:** YSR Kadapa man
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment (sentence imposed by the Supreme Court under IPC 330, retaining the 5-year term the Sessions Judge had imposed under IPC 331)

Per the Supreme Court judgment of 09-05-1963, Head Constable of Vempalli police station (Cuddapah district) was among three policemen convicted by the Sessions Judge, Anantapur Division, for confining and beating a suspect arrested on 06-01-1957. The trial court convicted under IPC 348, 331 and 201/109 with 5 years RI; the AP High Court acquitted on appeal; the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal in part, convicted all three under IPC 330 and sentenced each to 5 years RI. Exact trial conviction date is not stated in the accessed extract.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/643373/the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-appellant-hash-n-venugopal-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-32-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-32-003)

## Sessions trial, Sessions Judge Anantapur Division (State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.); Criminal Appeal (SC) No.142/1961, decided 09-05-1963 (AIR 1964 SC 33) (t2w3-32-004)

**Record:** t2w3-32-004
**Title:** Sessions trial, Sessions Judge Anantapur Division (State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.); Criminal Appeal (SC) No.142/1961, decided 09-05-1963 (AIR 1964 SC 33)
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Anantapur Division (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions trial, Sessions Judge Anantapur Division (State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.); Criminal Appeal (SC) No.142/1961, decided 09-05-1963 (AIR 1964 SC 33)
**Conviction:** date not stated; between the January 1957 incident and the 1961 appeal to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court itself convicted under IPC 330 on 9 May 1963
**Incident date:** 1957-01-08 (1957)
**Place:** YSR Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 348; IPC 331; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Vempalli Police Station, Cuddapah District (undivided Andhra Pradesh)
**Victims:** YSR Kadapa man
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment (sentence imposed by the Supreme Court under IPC 330, retaining the 5-year term the Sessions Judge had imposed under IPC 331)

Per the Supreme Court judgment of 09-05-1963, Police Constable of Vempalli police station (Cuddapah district) was among three policemen convicted by the Sessions Judge, Anantapur Division, for confining and beating a suspect arrested on 06-01-1957. The trial court convicted under IPC 348, 331 and 201/109 with 5 years RI; the AP High Court acquitted on appeal; the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal in part, convicted all three under IPC 330 and sentenced each to 5 years RI. Exact trial conviction date is not stated in the accessed extract.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/643373/the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-appellant-hash-n-venugopal-and-others-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-32-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-32-004)

## C.C.No.12 of 1996 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); appeal decided 12.09.2005 (t2w2-06-011)

**Record:** t2w2-06-011
**Title:** C.C.No.12 of 1996 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); appeal decided 12.09.2005
**Court:** Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.12 of 1996 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); appeal decided 12.09.2005
**Conviction:** 31 January 2000
**Incident date:** 1995-09-18 (1995)
**Place:** Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Krishnagiri Police Station, Kurnool District
**Victims:** Kurnool man
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + Rs.1,000 fine on each count

The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, convicted Sub-Inspector of Krishnagiri Police Station, Kurnool district, in C.C.No.12 of 1996 vide judgment dated 31.01.2000, for illegally detaining the complainant's son without registering a crime on 17.09.1995 and demanding and accepting Rs.2,000 the next day for his release (Crime No.5/ACB-KUR/95; tainted notes recovered from his house with positive phenolphthalein tests). He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with Rs.1,000 fine on each count under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. On appeal (decided 12.09.2005, Elipe Dharma Rao J), the AP High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence. (Criminal appeal number not stated in the judgment text.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1321796/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-06-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-06-011)

## Sessions Case No.137 of 2000 (State vs Jyothi & Ors.; custodial death of woman detainee Krishna Woman, Mahila Police Station Vijayawada); AP High Court Crl.A.No.1326 of 2007 (A-4), decided 20-04-2011 (t2w3-32-006)

**Record:** t2w3-32-006
**Title:** Sessions Case No.137 of 2000 (State vs Jyothi & Ors.; custodial death of woman detainee Krishna Woman, Mahila Police Station Vijayawada); AP High Court Crl.A.No.1326 of 2007 (A-4), decided 20-04-2011
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada (Krishna district) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Case No.137 of 2000 (State vs Jyothi & Ors.; custodial death of woman detainee Krishna Woman, Mahila Police Station Vijayawada); AP High Court Crl.A.No.1326 of 2007 (A-4), decided 20-04-2011
**Conviction:** 17 August 2007
**Incident date:** 1999-01-01 (1999)
**Place:** Krishna, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 302, IPC (trial; set aside on appeal); Section 348, IPC (trial; set aside on appeal); Section 331, IPC (trial; set aside on appeal); Section 201, IPC (trial; CONFIRMED on appeal)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Woman Police Constable (night duty), Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada (Krishna district)
**Victims:** Krishna woman
**Sentence:** Trial: life (s.302) + 2 yrs RI each (ss.348/331/201); appeal (Crl.A.No.1326/2007, partly allowed) set aside ss.302/348/331 convictions and confirmed only s.201 IPC conviction (2 yrs RI + fine), release if already served

Per the AP High Court judgment of 20-04-2011, the night-duty Woman Police Constable (A-4) of Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada — whose full name is not stated in the accessed judgment text — was convicted with three colleagues by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada on 17-08-2007 in Sessions Case No.137 of 2000 for the May-1999 custodial death of woman detainee a Krishna woman Her appeal (Crl.A.No.1326/2007) was partly allowed: convictions under IPC 302/348/331 were set aside but the IPC 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) conviction was confirmed, with release if that sentence was already served.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/708956/gandikota-venkateswarlu-and-gandikota-ranga-rao-appellant-hash-state-of-ap-respondent/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-32-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-32-006)

## CBI case: retired Sub-Inspector, City Armed Reserve Visakhapatnam and a private person sentenced (CBI PR dated 28.01.2009) (t2w3-23-007)

**Record:** t2w3-23-007
**Title:** CBI case: retired Sub-Inspector, City Armed Reserve Visakhapatnam and a private person sentenced (CBI PR dated 28.01.2009)
**Court:** Not stated in index entry (CBI case) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI case: retired Sub-Inspector, City Armed Reserve Visakhapatnam and a private person sentenced (CBI PR dated 28.01.2009)
**Conviction:** 28 January 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (retired), City Armed Reserve, Visakhapatnam
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The official CBI press-release index (archived) lists a release dated 28.01.2009 titled 'A retired Sub Inspector of the City Armed Reserve, Visakhapatnam and a private person sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment with a total fine of Rs. 1000/-'. The index entry does not name the officer, the convicting court, the case number, or the sections. The linked full press-release page was not captured by the web archive and no corroborating report could be verified in-session.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20090131144832id_/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pressrelease.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-23-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-23-007)

## S.C.No.187/1991 (State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors); Crl.A.No.72/2009 before II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur (t2w2-06-012)

**Record:** t2w2-06-012
**Title:** S.C.No.187/1991 (State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors); Crl.A.No.72/2009 before II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur
**Court:** Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** S.C.No.187/1991 (State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors); Crl.A.No.72/2009 before II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur
**Conviction:** 1 June 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** YSR Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 324; IPC 147; IPC 149 r/w IPC 324
**Officers (gated display forms):** Circle Inspector (retired as DSP), Kadapa District (A-1); Sub-Inspector (later DSP, APPA), Kadapa District (A-2); Sub-Inspector (RPSI, GRP), GRP, Railway Station Kadapa / GRP Guntakal (A-3); Head Constable (No.1293), Obulavaripalli Police Station, Kadapa (A-4); Head Constable (No.1466), Vemula Police Station, Kadapa (A-6); Police Constable (No.1409), Mylavaram Police Station, Kadapa (A-8); Head Constable (No.717), PCR, Kadapa City (A-9); Police Constable (No.1098, retired), Kadapa District (A-10)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + Rs.5,000 fine each u/s 324 IPC; fine only u/ss.147 and 149/324 IPC

The Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur, convicted eight serving/retired Kadapa-district police personnel (a Circle Inspector, two Sub-Inspectors, three Head Constables and two Constables) in S.C.No.187/1991 vide judgment dated 01.06.2009, sentencing each to one year's rigorous imprisonment with Rs.5,000 fine under s.324 IPC (fine only on the ss.147 and 149/324 counts); two co-accused constables (A-5 Ramana, A-7 Ramadass) died and the case against them abated. The conviction list, court, case number and date are recorded in AP G.O.Ms.No.111, Home (Services-I), dated 04.05.2013 imposing dismissal on A-2 \[name withheld\], and the sections/sentence are confirmed in the AP High Court order dated 02.11.2011. The convicts' appeal (Crl.A.No.72/2009, II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur) was pending in 2011 with sentences suspended but conviction-suspension refused; its final outcome is not known. (Incident/victim details not stated in either source.)

**Sources (4):** [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/in.gov.andhra.goir.2013-05-04.E-272706/E-272706.pdf); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/699187/l-sathish-kumar-appellant-hash-state-of-ap-and-another-respondent/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=401102928000&title=l-sathish-kumar-vs-state-of-a-p); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=401102928000&title=l-sathish-kumar-vs-state-of-a-p (HC order 02.11.2011 in Crl.P.Nos.10828/2009 & 901/2010 confirming conviction/sentence, appeal Crl.A.72/2009))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-06-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-06-012)

## C.C.No.11 of 2007 (State vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.65, Home (SC.A), 20-03-2010 (t2w3-32-009)

**Record:** t2w3-32-009
**Title:** C.C.No.11 of 2007 (State vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.65, Home (SC.A), 20-03-2010
**Court:** Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.11 of 2007 (State vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.65, Home (SC.A), 20-03-2010
**Conviction:** 20 March 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Government Railway Police Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Not stated in accessed gazette extract (dismissal from service imposed consequent on conviction)

Per G.O.Ms.No.65, Home (SC.A), dated 20-03-2010 (AP Gazette No.133 of 25-03-2010), Sub-Inspector, formerly of the Government Railway Police Station, Bhimavaram (West Godavari district), was dismissed from service with immediate effect under Rule 25 of the AP Civil Services (CC&A) Rules consequent on his conviction in C.C.No.11 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. The gazette states the court and case number but not the conviction date, sections, sentence or fine.

**Sources (2):** [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/in.gazette.andhra.2010-03-25.133_PARTI/133_PARTI.pdf); [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/in.gazette.andhra.2010-03-25.133_PARTI/133_PARTI_djvu.txt)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-32-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-32-009)

## C.C.No.3 of 2005 (RC No.34(A)/2002, CBI Hyderabad — fake passport case); Crl.A.No.784 of 2007 (SC) (t2w2-06-013)

**Record:** t2w2-06-013
**Title:** C.C.No.3 of 2005 (RC No.34(A)/2002, CBI Hyderabad — fake passport case); Crl.A.No.784 of 2007 (SC)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** C.C.No.3 of 2005 (RC No.34(A)/2002, CBI Hyderabad — fake passport case); Crl.A.No.784 of 2007 (SC)
**Conviction:** 9 November 2010
**Incident date:** 2001-05-16 (2001)
**Place:** Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 419 r/w 109; IPC 420 r/w 109; IPC 468; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Shaik Abdul Sattar (Writer-Head Constable, Special Branch)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Trial: 3 years' RI + Rs.500 fine on each IPC count; 1 year's RI + Rs.500 fine on PC Act count. HC: IPC counts reduced to 1 year's RI each (PC Act sentence confirmed). SC (09.11.2010): conviction upheld on all counts; each count reduced to 6 months' RI, fine maintained, concurrent

The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, convicted Writer-Head Constable Shaik Abdul Sattar of the Special Branch, Kurnool (A-5) in C.C.No.3 of 2005 (RC 34(A)/2002) vide judgment dated 29.09.2006, for submitting fake police verification reports with false statements of six supposed neighbours that enabled fake passports for Abu Salem's associates in assumed names (applications received at SP Office Kurnool on 16.05.2001). He was convicted under ss.120-B, 419 r/w 109, 420 r/w 109 and 468 IPC and s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, and sentenced to three years' RI on each IPC count and one year's RI on the PC Act count. The High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the IPC sentences to one year each, and the Supreme Court (Crl.A.No.784 of 2007, decided 09.11.2010, B. Sudershan Reddy J) upheld the conviction on all counts while reducing each count to six months' RI with fines maintained, concurrent.

**Sources (5):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1104661/); [satp.org](https://satp.org/other-data/india/court-proceedings_2006); [satp.org](https://satp.org/other-data/india/court-proceedings_2006 (SATP prosecution tracker corroborating 29.09.2006 sentencing)); [thehinduimages.com](https://thehinduimages.com/details-page.php?id=9550992); [thehinduimages.com](https://thehinduimages.com/details-page.php?id=9550992 (The Hindu photo caption: Special CBI Court Hyderabad sentenced the accused on 29.09.2006))
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-06-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-06-013)

## Sessions Case No.137 of 2000 (State vs Jyothi & Ors.; custodial death of woman detainee \[name withheld\], Mahila Police Station Vijayawada); AP High Court Crl.A.Nos.1123,1124,1158,1326 of 2007, decided 20-04-2011 (t2w3-32-005)

**Record:** t2w3-32-005
**Title:** Sessions Case No.137 of 2000 (State vs Jyothi & Ors.; custodial death of woman detainee \[name withheld\], Mahila Police Station Vijayawada); AP High Court Crl.A.Nos.1123,1124,1158,1326 of 2007, decided 20-04-2011
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada (Krishna district) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Case No.137 of 2000 (State vs Jyothi & Ors.; custodial death of woman detainee \[name withheld\], Mahila Police Station Vijayawada); AP High Court Crl.A.Nos.1123,1124,1158,1326 of 2007, decided 20-04-2011
**Conviction:** 20 April 2011
**Incident date:** 1999-05-05 (1999)
**Place:** NTR, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 348; IPC 331; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Woman Police Constable, Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada (Krishna district)
**Victims:** NTR woman
**Sentence:** Trial: life (s.302) + 2 yrs RI each (ss.348/331/201); appeal set aside ss.302/348/331 convictions and confirmed only s.201 IPC conviction (2 yrs RI + fine), release if already served

Per the AP High Court judgment of 20-04-2011, Woman Police Constable (A-3) of Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada was among four police personnel convicted by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada on 17-08-2007 in Sessions Case No.137 of 2000 for the custodial death of woman detainee \[name withheld\] in the Mahila PS lock-up in May 1999 (first reported as suicide; inquest/CID pointed to custodial killing). The trial court imposed life under IPC 302 plus RI terms under IPC 348/331/201; on appeal the High Court set aside the ss.302/348/331 convictions but confirmed the s.201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence) conviction, directing release if that sentence was already served.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/708956/gandikota-venkateswarlu-and-gandikota-ranga-rao-appellant-hash-state-of-ap-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-32-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-32-005)

## C.C.No.45 of 2007 (State vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (SC.A), 20-05-2011 (t2w3-32-010)

**Record:** t2w3-32-010
**Title:** C.C.No.45 of 2007 (State vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (SC.A), 20-05-2011
**Court:** Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.45 of 2007 (State vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (SC.A), 20-05-2011
**Conviction:** 20 May 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (HC 727), Vatticherukuru Police Station, Guntur district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Not stated in accessed gazette extract (dismissal from service imposed consequent on conviction)

Per G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (SC.A), dated 20-05-2011 (AP Gazette No.254 of 26-05-2011), Head Constable (No.727), formerly of Vatticherukuru police station (Guntur district), was dismissed from service with immediate effect under Rule 25 of the AP Civil Services (CC&A) Rules consequent on his conviction in C.C.No.45 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. The gazette states the court and case number but not the conviction date, sections, sentence or fine.

**Sources (1):** [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/in.gazette.andhra.2011-05-26.254_PARTI/254_PARTI.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-32-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-32-010)

## C.C.No.21 of 2005 (State vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.277, Home (SC.A), 26-11-2011 (t2w3-32-011)

**Record:** t2w3-32-011
**Title:** C.C.No.21 of 2005 (State vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.277, Home (SC.A), 26-11-2011
**Court:** Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.21 of 2005 (State vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.277, Home (SC.A), 26-11-2011
**Conviction:** 26 November 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Home Guards (Reserve Inspector), District Police Office, Guntur district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Not stated in accessed gazette extract (dismissal from service imposed consequent on conviction)

Per G.O.Ms.No.277, Home (SC.A), dated 26-11-2011 (AP Gazette No.678 of 02-12-2011), Sri \[name withheld\], Inspector (Reserve Inspector), formerly at the District Police Office, Guntur, was dismissed from service with immediate effect under Rule 25 of the AP Civil Services (CC&A) Rules consequent on his conviction in C.C.No.21 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. The gazette states the court and case number but not the conviction date, sections, sentence or fine.

**Sources (1):** [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/in.gazette.andhra.2011-12-02.678_PARTI/678_PARTI.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-32-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-32-011)

## CBI v. CISF Constable (t2w3-24-002)

**Record:** t2w3-24-002
**Title:** CBI v. CISF Constable
**Court:** Additional Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. CISF Constable
**Conviction:** 4 February 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Anakapalli, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CISF Unit, VSSC Thumba, ISRO Post, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Additional Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam convicted CISF Constable and two private co-accused (his sister and her husband) for issuing fake appointment letters for ASI (clerk) posts in the CISF, and sentenced Rao to seven years RI with Rs.2,000 fine (the private pair got six months RI with Rs.5,000 fine each). The release states Rao abused his official position, took Rs.10,000-80,000 from 30 unemployed candidates around Yelamanchili, and issued forged appointment and training-intimation letters.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzY4Mw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-002)

## CBI v. CISF Deputy Commandant (t2w3-24-003)

**Record:** t2w3-24-003
**Title:** CBI v. CISF Deputy Commandant
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. CISF Deputy Commandant
**Conviction:** 21 February 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, HPCL (VR), Visakhapatnam
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam convicted CISF Deputy \[name withheld\] in a bribery case and sentenced him to one year RI with Rs.5,000 fine. The release states he was caught red-handed demanding and accepting Rs.5,000 from a travel-agency proprietor for not cancelling the supervisor's pass and for allowing hired cars inside HPCL premises without hindrance.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzY2OA==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-003)

## C.C.No.11/2013 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.177, Home (SC.A), 21-11-2017 (t2w3-10-001)

**Record:** t2w3-10-001
**Title:** C.C.No.11/2013 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.177, Home (SC.A), 21-11-2017
**Court:** Special Judge Court for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.11/2013 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.177, Home (SC.A), 21-11-2017
**Conviction:** 4 September 2013
**Incident date:** 2011-08-19 (2011)
**Place:** Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (No.386), Bobbili Police Station, Vizianagaram District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** SI 1 year (s.7) + SI 2 years (s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)); concurrent

The Special Judge Court for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, convicted ASI (No.386, Bobbili Police Station, Vizianagaram) in C.C.No.11/2013 vide judgment dated 04.09.2013 for demanding and accepting Rs.10,000 on 19.08.2011 to complete an investigation and file a charge sheet favouring bail relaxation, sentencing him to 1 year's SI under s.7 and 2 years' SI under s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) PC Act with fines, concurrent. The Government consequently ordered withholding of his entire pension and gratuity permanently (G.O.Ms.No.177, Home (SC.A), 21-11-2017).

**Sources (1):** [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/in.gov.andhra.goir.2017-11-21.E-399107/E-399107.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-10-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-10-001)

## CBI v. Railway Protection Force Inspector (t2w4-24-001)

**Record:** t2w4-24-001
**Title:** CBI v. Railway Protection Force Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Railway Protection Force Inspector
**Conviction:** 11 February 2015
**Incident date:** 2010-08-10 (2010)
**Place:** East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Rajahmundry; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Rajahmundry
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs.15,000 fine each

The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam convicted RPF Inspector and ASI. \[name withheld\] for demanding and accepting a Rs.10,000 bribe from a lorry owner to release lorry documents detained by RPF Rajahmundry after a 10.08.2010 accident case and not implicate him; the ASI was caught red-handed accepting the amount on behalf of the Inspector at RPF Post Rajahmundry. Each was sentenced to 4 years RI with Rs.15,000 fine.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjE5MA==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-24-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-24-001)

## C.C.No.17/2015 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\] & Ors); G.O.Ms.No.113, Home (SC.A), 06-07-2017 (t2w3-10-006)

**Record:** t2w3-10-006
**Title:** C.C.No.17/2015 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\] & Ors); G.O.Ms.No.113, Home (SC.A), 06-07-2017
**Court:** Special Judge Court for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.17/2015 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\] & Ors); G.O.Ms.No.113, Home (SC.A), 06-07-2017
**Conviction:** 5 June 2017
**Incident date:** 2013-05-03 (2013)
**Place:** Annamayya, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Peddamandyam Police Station, Chittoor District; Head Constable (No.2299/CT), Peddamandyam Police Station, Chittoor District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** AO-1: RI 3 years (s.7) + RI 3 years (s.13(1)(d)), concurrent; AO-2: RI 1 year (s.12)

The Special Judge Court for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, convicted Sub-Inspector and Head Constable of Peddamandyam Police Station, Chittoor, in C.C.No.17/2015 vide judgment dated 05.06.2017 for demanding and accepting Rs.15,000 through the constables on 03.05.2013 to refer a case against the complainant as false, sentencing the SI to 3 years' RI on each of ss.7 and 13(1)(d) PC Act counts (Rs.5,000 fines, concurrent) and the Head Constable to 1 year's RI under s.12 (Rs.2,000 fine); co-accused PC (AO-3) was acquitted. The Government dismissed both convicts from service (G.O.Ms.No.113, Home (SC.A), 06-07-2017).

**Sources (1):** [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/in.gov.andhra.goir.2017-07-06.E-391110/E-391110.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-10-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-10-006)

## C.C.No.32/2007 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.68, Home (SC.A), 24-05-2018 (t2w3-10-005)

**Record:** t2w3-10-005
**Title:** C.C.No.32/2007 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.68, Home (SC.A), 24-05-2018
**Court:** Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.32/2007 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.68, Home (SC.A), 24-05-2018
**Conviction:** 17 November 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Bhogapuram Circle, Vizianagaram District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** RI 3 years

The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, convicted Inspector of Police \[name withheld\] of Bhogapuram Circle, Vizianagaram, in C.C.No.32/2007 vide judgment dated 17.11.2017 on the disproportionate-assets charge (RCB No.ACB116/RCA-WVP/2006), sentencing him to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with Rs.1,00,000 fine and ordering confiscation of assets worth Rs.6,64,927 to the \[name withheld\]. The Government consequently ordered withholding of his entire pension and gratuity permanently (G.O.Ms.No.68, Home (SC.A), 24-05-2018). Sections are not stated in the GO.

**Sources (1):** [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/in.gov.andhra.goir.2018-05-24.E-411190/E-411190.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-10-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-10-005)

## C.C.No.25/2017 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.82, Home (SC.A), 14-06-2019 (t2w3-10-003)

**Record:** t2w3-10-003
**Title:** C.C.No.25/2017 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.82, Home (SC.A), 14-06-2019
**Court:** Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.25/2017 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.82, Home (SC.A), 14-06-2019
**Conviction:** 9 April 2019
**Incident date:** 2016-02-26 (2016)
**Place:** Bapatla, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.8 r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (No.212), Chirala Town Police Station, Prakasam District
**Victims:** Bapatla resident
**Sentence:** RI 3 years

The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, convicted Police Constable (No.212, Chirala Town Police Station, Prakasam) in C.C.No.25/2017 vide judgment dated 09.04.2019 for demanding and accepting Rs.60,000 on 26.02.2016 to influence the court and help the complainant's relatives (in judicial custody in Cr.No.45/2016) get bail, sentencing him to 3 years' RI with Rs.50,000 fine. The Government consequently dismissed him from service (G.O.Ms.No.82, Home (SC.A), 14-06-2019).

**Sources (1):** [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/in.gov.andhra.goir.2019-06-14.E-436471/E-436471.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-10-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-10-003)

## C.C.No.15/2017 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\] & \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.79, Home (SC.A), 22-05-2019 (t2w3-10-002)

**Record:** t2w3-10-002
**Title:** C.C.No.15/2017 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\] & \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.79, Home (SC.A), 22-05-2019
**Court:** Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.15/2017 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\] & \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.79, Home (SC.A), 22-05-2019
**Conviction:** 25 April 2019
**Incident date:** 2014-07-31 (2014)
**Place:** Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7 r/w s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, II Town Police Station, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District; Head Constable (No.277/TU), II Town Police Station, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District
**Victims:** Tirupati resident
**Sentence:** AO-1: RI 3 years; AO-2: RI 2 years

The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, convicted Sub-Inspector and Head Constable of II Town Police Station, Srikalahasti, in C.C.No.15/2017 vide judgment dated 25.04.2019 for demanding and accepting Rs.30,000 on 31.07.2014 to refer criminal cases against the complainant as false, sentencing the SI to 3 years' RI (Rs.50,000 fine) and the Head Constable to 2 years' RI (Rs.20,000 fine). The Government consequently ordered withholding of the SI's entire pension and gratuity permanently and dismissed the Head Constable from service (G.O.Ms.No.79, Home (SC.A), 22-05-2019).

**Sources (1):** [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/in.gov.andhra.goir.2019-05-22.E-435495/E-435495.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-10-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-10-002)

## CBI v. Railway Protection Force Sub-Inspector (t2w3-26-001)

**Record:** t2w3-26-001
**Title:** CBI v. Railway Protection Force Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Railway Protection Force Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 18 May 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 (bribery; sections not specified in press release)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force (RPF), South Central Railway, Guntur Division
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam sentenced Shri \[name withheld\], then Sub-Inspector, RPF, South Central Railway, Guntur Division, to three years Rigorous Imprisonment with a total fine of Rs.20,000 in a bribery case. The release states he demanded Rs.1 lakh (later reduced to Rs.30,000) for not booking a case against the complainant, was caught in a CBI trap accepting the bribe, chargesheeted, and convicted after trial. (Note: the migrated press-detail page carries no printed PR date; it sits between 17.05.2022 and 18.05.2022 clippings entries, and UNI reported the sentence on 19.05.2022; conviction date recorded as 2022-05-18.)

**Sources (4):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NDk5OA==); [news.webindia123.com](https://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20220519/3943067.html); [telugustop.com](https://telugustop.com/ex-si-of-rpf-gets-3-yr-ri-for-bribe-latest-eng-news-1475015); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/socially/india/news/a-former-sub-inspector-in-the-railway-protection-force-was-awarded-three-years-latest-tweet-by-ians-india-3722327.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-26-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-26-001)

## State v. Assam Police Havildar (t2w3-20-001)

**Record:** t2w3-20-001
**Title:** State v. Assam Police Havildar
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Karimganj (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Assam Police Havildar
**Conviction:** 28 June 1995
**Incident date:** 1992-03-08 (1992)
**Place:** Karimganj, Assam
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 307; IPC 448
**Officers (gated display forms):** Havildar, Assam Police (residing at Balipipla Forest office; caught at scene in khaki uniform, armed with gun)
**Victims:** Karimganj man
**Sentence:** 7 years RI + Rs.500 fine (3 months RI in default) u/s 307 IPC; 3 months RI u/s 448 IPC; concurrent

The Sessions Judge, Karimganj on 28 June 1995 convicted police Havildar in Sessions Case No. 75 of 1994 for entering the hotel-cum-residence of a Karimganj man at Rangamati (Patharkandi PS Case No. 44/92) in khaki uniform with a gun on 8 March 1992 and firing at him, causing a serious bullet injury to his back. The court sentenced him to 7 years RI with Rs.500 fine under IPC s.307 plus 3 months RI under s.448, concurrent. On appeal the Gauhati High Court on 3 October 2002 partly allowed the appeal, sliding the s.307 conviction down to s.324 IPC (6 months RI + Rs.1,000 fine, compensation to victim) while maintaining the s.448 conviction, and ordered surrender.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1341243/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-20-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-20-001)

## State v \[name withheld\], GR 5781/1998 (t2w4-19-001)

**Record:** t2w4-19-001
**Title:** State v \[name withheld\], GR 5781/1998
**Court:** Special Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** State v \[name withheld\], GR 5781/1998
**Conviction:** 18 October 2001
**Incident date:** 1998-12-13 (1998)
**Place:** Kamrup Metropolitan, Assam
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 392
**Officers (gated display forms):** Havildar, Assam Police
**Victims:** Kamrup Metropolitan man
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + fine Rs.300

The Special Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati found Assam Police Havildar guilty of robbing Rs.12,000 from bus passenger a Kamrup Metropolitan man at the Guwahati ASTC stand on 13.12.1998 (GR 5781/1998), convicting him on 18.10.2001 under s.392 IPC and sentencing him to 2 years RI plus Rs.300 fine; a khukri was recovered from his house. The conviction survived a sessions appeal (dismissed 05.03.2002) and a Gauhati High Court revision (dismissed 19.07.2006), as recorded by the High Court; the co-accused was acquitted.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1278826/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/420741/nibaran-borah-appellant-hash-state-of-assam-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-19-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-19-001)

## State of Assam vs Dhemaji Police police personnel (exact rank not stated in Supreme Court judgment) (t2w3-37-005)

**Record:** t2w3-37-005
**Title:** State of Assam vs Dhemaji Police police personnel (exact rank not stated in Supreme Court judgment)
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Dhemaji (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State of Assam vs Dhemaji Police police personnel (exact rank not stated in Supreme Court judgment)
**Conviction:** 24 January 2007
**Incident date:** 2000-09-26 (2000)
**Place:** Dhemaji, Assam
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part-I
**Officers (gated display forms):** police personnel (exact rank not stated in Supreme Court judgment), Jonai Police Station, Dhemaji, Assam
**Victims:** Dhemaji resident
**Sentence:** Trial: life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC (Gauhati HC affirmed). Supreme Court (24.01.2007): offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder; conviction altered to 304 Part-I IPC with 10-year custodial sentence.

Per the Supreme Court (24.01.2007), \[name withheld\], a police personnel of Jonai PS, assaulted truck driver \[name withheld\] at Ruksin Gate around 11 p.m. on 26.09.2000; the driver died on 29.09.2000 while being taken to hospital. The Sessions Judge, Dhemaji convicted him under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment, which the Gauhati High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court altered the conviction to 304 Part-I IPC with a 10-year custodial sentence. The trial conviction date and sessions case number are not stated in the judgment (trial pre-dates SLP 5338/2006).

**Sources (1):** [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/28513.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-37-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-37-005)

## Sessions Case No.38/2003 (GR Case No.559/1999); appeal Crl.A./152/2023 (2025 GAU-AS 5373-DB) (t2w2-11-033)

**Record:** t2w2-11-033
**Title:** Sessions Case No.38/2003 (GR Case No.559/1999); appeal Crl.A./152/2023 (2025 GAU-AS 5373-DB)
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Jorhat (de novo trial; case originated at Sessions Judge, Golaghat) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Case No.38/2003 (GR Case No.559/1999); appeal Crl.A./152/2023 (2025 GAU-AS 5373-DB)
**Conviction:** 8 November 2013
**Incident date:** 1999-08-20 (1999)
**Place:** Golaghat, Assam
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 302 IPC; 27(2) Arms Act
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Assam Police, Golaghat
**Victims:** Golaghat man
**Sentence:** SI for life + Rs.5,000 fine (2 years RI in default) u/s 302; 7 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine (2 years RI in default) u/s 27(2) Arms Act

The Sessions Judge, Jorhat convicted Assam Police constable for shooting dead an \[name withheld\] in the premises of Urbashi Cinema Hall, Golaghat at about 11 AM on 20 August 1999, sentencing him to simple imprisonment for life (Rs.5,000 fine) under section 302 plus 7 years RI under the Arms Act on 8 November 2013 in a de novo trial ordered after the High Court set aside a 2006 acquittal. The Gauhati High Court dismissed his appeal (Crl.A./152/2023) on 1 May 2025, holding the circumstantial chain proved his culpability.

**Sources (3):** [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/681b3d0359f4f3234b0803f9); [ghconline.gov.in](https://ghconline.gov.in/NewCList/sl-01-05-2025.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/250755/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-11-033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-11-033)

## State vs Assam Police Police Constable (t2w2-11-017)

**Record:** t2w2-11-017
**Title:** State vs Assam Police Police Constable
**Court:** Sessions Court, Sivasagar (exact designation not stated in appellate judgment) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Assam Police Police Constable
**Conviction:** 23 August 2016
**Incident date:** 2006-03-13 (2006)
**Place:** Sivasagar, Assam
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Assam Police
**Victims:** Sivasagar man, age 35
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment plus Rs 5,000 fine

The Sessions trial court at Sivasagar convicted Assam Police constable under IPC section 302 for shooting a Sivasagar man dead with his allotted.303 rifle while on guard duty at Sivasagar Circuit House on 13 March 2006, sentencing him to life imprisonment with a Rs.5,000 fine. The Gauhati High Court dismissed his appeal on 23 August 2016, agreeing with the trial court that he alone perpetrated the crime.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167026295/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-11-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-11-017)

## CBI blinding case arising from Amarpur P.S. Case No. 15(6)80 (blinding of Bhagalpur Man) — State (CBI) vs Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta (Cr. Rev. No. 851/1990) (t2w2-02-006)

**Record:** t2w2-02-006
**Title:** CBI blinding case arising from Amarpur P.S. Case No. 15(6)80 (blinding of Bhagalpur Man) — State (CBI) vs Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta (Cr. Rev. No. 851/1990)
**Court:** Trial Magistrate, CBI case (Amarpur P.S. Case No. 15(6)80; exact court/number unstated — first appeals Cr. App. 107 & 116/1987) (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** CBI blinding case arising from Amarpur P.S. Case No. 15(6)80 (blinding of Bhagalpur Man) — State (CBI) vs Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta (Cr. Rev. No. 851/1990)
**Conviction:** 1987
**Incident date:** 1980-06-21 (1980)
**Place:** Bhagalpur, Bihar
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 326 r/w 34; IPC 220
**Officers (gated display forms):** Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta (Officer-in-Charge (Sub-Inspector/Inspector, Amarpur Police Station))
**Victims:** Bhagalpur man
**Sentence:** Trial court: 2 years RI u/s 120B + 1 year RI u/s 326/34 + Rs 1,000 fine under each count (6 months SI in default of each); further convicted u/s 220 IPC (Rs 1,000 fine, 6 months SI in default); concurrent. First appeal (Cr. App. 116/1987) dismissed, conviction confirmed; Patna HC (Aftab Alam, J., Cr. Rev. 851/1990, 11 March 1998, (1998) 2 PLJR 181) dismissed revision — conviction upheld

The trial court (CBI blinding case from Amarpur PS) convicted Officer-in-Charge Shiv Shankar Prasad Gupta for the custodial blinding of a Bhagalpur man (PW-1), arrested 20 June 1980 and blinded with acid at Amarpur Police Station on the morning of 21 June 1980 on Gupta's order, sentencing him to 2 years RI (120B) + 1 year RI (326/34) with fines plus a Section 220 conviction, while acquitting four constable co-accused. The lower appellate court dismissed his first appeal (Cr. App. 116/1987). The Patna High Court on 11 March 1998 dismissed his criminal revision, holding the finding that acid was poured on his order warranted no interference (the trial court had been 'rather lenient'). Exact trial-court name, trial number and conviction date were unstated in the revision judgment.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/771046/shiv-shankar-prasad-gupta-appellant-hash-the-state-of-bihar-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-02-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-02-006)

## CBI blinding case arising from Amarpur P.S. Case No. 15(6)80 (blinding of Bhagalpur Man) — State (CBI) vs Bihar Police Assistant Sub-Inspector ('Jamadar Verma') (t2w2-02-007)

**Record:** t2w2-02-007
**Title:** CBI blinding case arising from Amarpur P.S. Case No. 15(6)80 (blinding of Bhagalpur Man) — State (CBI) vs Bihar Police Assistant Sub-Inspector ('Jamadar Verma')
**Court:** Trial Magistrate, CBI case (Amarpur P.S. Case No. 15(6)80; exact court/number unstated — first appeals Cr. App. 107 & 116/1987) (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** CBI blinding case arising from Amarpur P.S. Case No. 15(6)80 (blinding of Bhagalpur Man) — State (CBI) vs Bihar Police Assistant Sub-Inspector ('Jamadar Verma')
**Conviction:** 1987
**Incident date:** 1980-06-21 (1980)
**Place:** Bhagalpur, Bihar
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 326 r/w 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector ('Jamadar Verma'), Amarpur Police Station, Bhagalpur, Bihar Police
**Victims:** Bhagalpur man
**Sentence:** Trial court: 2 years RI u/s 120B + 1 year RI u/s 326/34 + Rs 1,000 fine under each count (6 months SI in default of each); concurrent. First appeal (Cr. App. 116/1987, joint with Gupta) dismissed, conviction confirmed; Patna HC dismissed his criminal revision (Cr. Rev. 890/1990) on 8 September 1997 — conviction upheld (as recorded in Aftab Alam, J.'s 11 March 1998 judgment in the co-accuseds' revisions)

The trial court (CBI blinding case from Amarpur PS) convicted ASI ('\[name withheld\]', standing beside the OIC when acid was poured) for the custodial blinding of a Bhagalpur man on 21 June 1980, sentencing him to 2 years RI (120B) + 1 year RI (326/34) with fines. The lower appellate court dismissed his joint first appeal (Cr. App. 116/1987). The Patna High Court dismissed his separate criminal revision (890/1990) on 8 September 1997, upholding the conviction. Exact trial-court name, trial number and conviction date were unstated in the opened revision judgment; the 8.9.1997 revision order itself was not opened (recited in the 11.3.1998 judgment).

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/771046/shiv-shankar-prasad-gupta-appellant-hash-the-state-of-bihar-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-02-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-02-007)

## Trial No. 2 of 1987 arising out of RC 12 and 13 of 1981 (CBI/SPE Patna; Sabour P.S. Case No. 11(7)80) — State (CBI) vs Md. Wasimuddin and others; Govt. Appeal (SJ) No. 65 of 1990 (t2-09-004)

**Record:** t2-09-004
**Title:** Trial No. 2 of 1987 arising out of RC 12 and 13 of 1981 (CBI/SPE Patna; Sabour P.S. Case No. 11(7)80) — State (CBI) vs Md. Wasimuddin and others; Govt. Appeal (SJ) No. 65 of 1990
**Court:** Special Magistrate, CBI, Patna (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Trial No. 2 of 1987 arising out of RC 12 and 13 of 1981 (CBI/SPE Patna; Sabour P.S. Case No. 11(7)80) — State (CBI) vs Md. Wasimuddin and others; Govt. Appeal (SJ) No. 65 of 1990
**Conviction:** 31 August 1987
**Incident date:** 1980-07-24 (1980)
**Place:** Bhagalpur, Bihar
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B r/w 326; IPC 326; IPC 220
**Officers (gated display forms):** Md. Wasimuddin (Officer-in-Charge (Sub-Inspector/Inspector, Sabour Police Station)); Binda Prasad (Sub-Inspector)
**Victims:** Bhagalpur man; Bhagalpur man
**Sentence:** Trial court (31.8.1987): Wasimuddin — 2y RI (120B r/w 326) + 3y RI and Rs 1,000 fine (326; 1y SI in default) + 2y RI (220 IPC), concurrent; Binda Prasad — 2y RI (120B r/w 326). First appeal (14th ADJ Patna) acquitted all; Patna HC (Govt. Appeal (SJ) 65/1990, Dharnidhar Jha, J., 2 May 2011) set aside the acquittal of Wasimuddin and Binda Prasad, restored the trial conviction/sentence and ordered surrender; third co-accused \[name withheld\]'s acquittal maintained (not listed as officer)

The Special Magistrate, CBI, Patna convicted OIC Md. Wasimuddin and SI Binda Prasad of Sabour PS on 31 August 1987 (Trial No. 2 of 1987, RC 12-13/1981) for the 1980 Bhagalpur blinding of two undertrial prisoners (PWs 1-2), whose eyes were pierced and acid poured, holding them guilty under IPC Sections 120B r/w 326 (plus Sections 326 and 220 for Wasimuddin). After the 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna acquitted all accused on first appeal, the Patna High Court on 2 May 2011 allowed the CBI's appeal in part, calling the acquittal perverse, restoring the trial conviction and sentence against Wasimuddin and Binda Prasad and directing them to surrender to serve it. (Press accounts claiming 'life imprisonment' are contradicted by the judgment text, which records 2-3 year terms.)

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1688817/); [bhaskarenglish.in](https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/amp/bihar-election/news/bhagalpur-blindings-case-operation-gangajal-congress-bjp-136220354.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-09-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-09-004)

## Special Case No. 18 of 1989 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 60/77 — State vs \[name withheld\] (Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 295 of 1993) (t2-09-002)

**Record:** t2-09-002
**Title:** Special Case No. 18 of 1989 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 60/77 — State vs \[name withheld\] (Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 295 of 1993)
**Court:** Special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Special Case No. 18 of 1989 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 60/77 — State vs \[name withheld\] (Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 295 of 1993)
**Conviction:** 4 September 1993
**Incident date:** 1977-12-09 (1977)
**Place:** Bhagalpur, Bihar
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(2) r/w 5(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Morhan outpost, Sabour Police Station, Bhagalpur, Bihar Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Trial court: RI 1 year under each count + Rs 1,000 fine under Sec 5(2). On appeal (Patna HC, 30 March 2009, appeal dismissed), sentence modified to RI 3 months under each count + Rs 2,000 fine (15 days RI in default), concurrent; bail bonds cancelled, directed to surrender

The Special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna convicted ASI on 4 September 1993 for accepting Rs 500 gratification on 9 December 1977 to refrain from arresting the complainant, holding the charges under IPC Sec 161 and PC Act 1947 Sec 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Patna High Court (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) on 30 March 2009 dismissed his appeal, relying on an independent witness (school principal PW-1) to the trap, search and seizure, but reduced the sentence to 3 months RI per count with Rs 2,000 fine given the 32-year pendency and his superannuation. The conviction itself was upheld.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/362273/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-09-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-09-002)

## Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1996 / 307 of 1994 (Barachatti P.S. Case No. 146/1993) — State vs \[name withheld\] and others (Barachatti fake encounter triple murder) (t2w2-02-004)

**Record:** t2w2-02-004
**Title:** Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1996 / 307 of 1994 (Barachatti P.S. Case No. 146/1993) — State vs \[name withheld\] and others (Barachatti fake encounter triple murder)
**Court:** 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya (ST No. 8/1996 / 307/1994) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1996 / 307 of 1994 (Barachatti P.S. Case No. 146/1993) — State vs \[name withheld\] and others (Barachatti fake encounter triple murder)
**Conviction:** 13 September 1996
**Incident date:** 1993-12-05 (1993)
**Place:** Gaya, Bihar
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302 r/w 34; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Officer-in-Charge, Barachatti Police Station, Gaya, Bihar Police; Sub-Inspector, Barachatti Police Station, Gaya, Bihar Police; Sub-Inspector, Barachatti Police Station, Gaya, Bihar Police; Constable, Barachatti Police Station, Gaya, Bihar Police; Constable, Barachatti Police Station, Gaya, Bihar Police; Constable, Barachatti Police Station, Gaya, Bihar Police
**Victims:** Gaya man; Gaya man; Gaya man
**Sentence:** Trial court: death sentence for all six under Section 302/34. Patna HC (28 November 1997): death confirmed for \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\]; life imprisonment for the three constables. Supreme Court (13 July 1998): acquitted \[name withheld\] on benefit of doubt; upheld Section 302/34 convictions of the other five and commuted the two death sentences to life imprisonment

The 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, on 13 September 1996 convicted all six Barachatti police officials under IPC Sections 302/34 and 201 and sentenced them to death for the staged-encounter triple murder on 5 December 1993 of Ranchi businessman \[name withheld\], his attendant a Gaya man and driver \[name withheld\], whose Maruti van was chased on GT Road and the occupants shot with service weapons before cash and valuables were looted and a false encounter FIR lodged. The Patna High Court on 28 November 1997 affirmed all convictions, confirming death for the three officers and commuting the three constables to life. The Supreme Court on 13 July 1998 (AIR 1998 SC 2443) acquitted \[name withheld\] on benefit of doubt but upheld the murder convictions of the other five, commuting the death sentences to life imprisonment.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1172785/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1087618/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-02-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-02-004)

## Special Case No. 03/2008 arising out of RC No. 01(A)/2008/CBI/ACB-VIII/New Delhi — State (CBI) vs \[name withheld\] (Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.181 of 2015) (t2w3-19-001)

**Record:** t2w3-19-001
**Title:** Special Case No. 03/2008 arising out of RC No. 01(A)/2008/CBI/ACB-VIII/New Delhi — State (CBI) vs \[name withheld\] (Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.181 of 2015)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI-3rd, Patna (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Special Case No. 03/2008 arising out of RC No. 01(A)/2008/CBI/ACB-VIII/New Delhi — State (CBI) vs \[name withheld\] (Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.181 of 2015)
**Conviction:** 31 March 2015
**Incident date:** 2008-01-29 (2008)
**Place:** Patna, Bihar
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, CBI Office, Patna (Central Bureau of Investigation)
**Victims:** Patna resident
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2) and 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 7, to run concurrently

\[name withheld\], an Inspector of CBI posted at Patna, demanded Rs 50,000 from UCO Bank Branch \[name withheld\] of Gidhaur to settle a loan-irregularity enquiry entrusted to him, and was caught in a CBI trap at Patna on 29-01-2008. The Special Judge, CBI-3rd, Patna convicted him on 31-03-2015 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with concurrent sentences of 5 and 3 years rigorous imprisonment plus fines. The Patna High Court dismissed his appeal on 18-07-2017, holding it lacked merit, so the conviction stands upheld.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105810989/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-19-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-19-001)

## Special Case No. 65/1998 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 43/88 — State (Vigilance) vs \[name withheld\] (Cr. App (SJ) No. 184 of 2009) (t2w2-02-013)

**Record:** t2w2-02-013
**Title:** Special Case No. 65/1998 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 43/88 — State (Vigilance) vs \[name withheld\] (Cr. App (SJ) No. 184 of 2009)
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance-1st, Patna (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Special Case No. 65/1998 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 43/88 — State (Vigilance) vs \[name withheld\] (Cr. App (SJ) No. 184 of 2009)
**Conviction:** 11 April 2019
**Incident date:** 1988-09-04 (1988)
**Place:** Patna, Bihar
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Dhanarua Police Station, Patna district, Bihar Police
**Victims:** Patna resident; Patna resident
**Sentence:** Trial court: 2 years RI + Rs 1,000 fine u/s 7; 2 years RI + Rs 1,000 fine u/s 13(2)/13(1)(d) (3 months SI in default of each); concurrent. UPHELD: Patna HC (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J., Cr. App (SJ) 184/2009, 11 April 2019, AIRONLINE 2019 PAT 479) dismissed the appeal — twin requirements (demand + voluntary acceptance) proved, Sec 20 presumption unrebutted; bail cancelled, surrender within fortnight

Special Judge (Vigilance-1st), Patna convicted ASI of Dhanarua PS on 21 February 2009 in Special Case No. 65/1998 for demanding Rs 1,000 from \[name withheld\] of Majhanpura to spare his brother \[name withheld\] (arrested at 3 AM on 4 September 1988 despite a bail order, assaulted, released after the father paid Rs 400), holding him guilty under PC Act Sections 7 and 13(2)/13(1)(d) with 2 years RI per count. The Patna High Court on 11 April 2019 dismissed his appeal, holding demand and voluntary acceptance proved and the Section 20 presumption unrebutted, and ordered him to surrender.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57182971/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-02-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-02-013)

## Purnia Man fake encounter case (Barhara/Bihariganj, Purnia, 1998; CBI investigation) — State (CBI) vs \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] (t2-09-006)

**Record:** t2-09-006
**Title:** Purnia Man fake encounter case (Barhara/Bihariganj, Purnia, 1998; CBI investigation) — State (CBI) vs \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Special Court (CBI), Patna (Additional District & Sessions Judge Avinash Kumar) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Purnia Man fake encounter case (Barhara/Bihariganj, Purnia, 1998; CBI investigation) — State (CBI) vs \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\]
**Conviction:** 8 October 2024
**Incident date:** 1998-01-01 (1998)
**Place:** Purnia, Bihar
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 201; IPC 193; IPC 182
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police (then Station In-charge, Barhara), Barhara Police Station, Purnia, Bihar Police; Inspector (former Inspector, Bihariganj Police Station), Bihariganj Police Station, Purnia, Bihar Police
**Victims:** Purnia man
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\] — life imprisonment (fined Rs 3,01,000 in the case; 1 year additional imprisonment in default); \[name withheld\] — 5 years imprisonment + Rs 50,000 fine

The CBI special court in Patna (Additional District & Sessions Judge Avinash Kumar) on 8 October 2024 convicted then-Barhara station in-charge (since promoted to DSP) and former Bihariganj inspector for the 1998 fake encounter killing of farmer \[name withheld\] of Joteli village, Purnia, holding after 26 years and ~45 witnesses that police had dragged him from his home and shot him dead while falsely claiming an encounter. \[name withheld\] was sentenced to life imprisonment under IPC Sections 302, 201, 193 and 182; Jha to 5 years. The victim's family sought compensation from the court. (Possible overlap with T2-14 CBI-court sweep — flag for dedupe.)

**Sources (2):** [thelucknowtribune.org](https://thelucknowtribune.org/purnia-fake-encounter-accused-to-cool-heels-in-jail/); [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NjU1OA==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-09-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-09-006)

## CBI v. SSB Assistant Commandant (then Asstt. Commandant) (t2-13-006)

**Record:** t2-13-006
**Title:** CBI v. SSB Assistant Commandant (then Asstt. Commandant)
**Court:** CBI Court, Patna (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. SSB Assistant Commandant (then Asstt. Commandant)
**Conviction:** 24 September 2025
**Incident date:** 2009-01-01 (2009)
**Place:** Araria, Bihar
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Commandant (then Asstt. Commandant), 19th Battalion, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Bathnaha, Forbesganj; Sub-Inspector, 19th Battalion, SSB, Bathnaha, Forbesganj
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 1 year + fine Rs 50,000 each

The CBI Court, Patna convicted SSB Assistant \[name withheld\] and Sub-Inspector for criminal conspiracy and misappropriation in 2009 of a seized truckload of betel nuts worth about Rs 24 lakh by abusing their official positions. The court sentenced each to 1 year's RI with Rs 50,000 fine. A third accused, Deputy Commandant Anand Kumar, died during trial. Note: SSB is a Central Armed Police Force; included as police personnel per broad construction.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NzI4Nw==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-006)

## CBI v. Chandigarh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-11-002)

**Record:** t2w4-11-002
**Title:** CBI v. Chandigarh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh (Shri Jagdeep Jain) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Chandigarh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 27 April 2007
**Incident date:** 2005-08-03 (2005)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Chandigarh Police (Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh)
**Victims:** Chandigarh man
**Sentence:** 1 year RI under each count, concurrent (custody set-off granted)

Per the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment, Sub-Inspector of Chandigarh Police (PS Sector 3) was convicted on 27-04-2007 by the Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh under ss.7 and 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the PC Act for demanding Rs 5,000 (later reduced to Rs 2,000) from \[name withheld\] to release his motorcycle seized after a 28-07-2005 road accident, on a CBI trap laid on his 03-08-2005 complaint, and was sentenced to one year's RI with fines. The High Court dismissed his appeal on 25-05-2009 and confirmed the conviction.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1253864/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-002)

## CBI vs Chandigarh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-09-004)

**Record:** t2w2-09-004
**Title:** CBI vs Chandigarh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Court for CBI Cases, Chandigarh (CBI Special Judge Darshan Singh) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Chandigarh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 6 April 2010
**Incident date:** 2007-06-01 (2007)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act (sections not stated)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Sector 61 police post (then in-charge), Chandigarh (UT) Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Quantum of sentence due 7 April 2010; amount not stated in this report

CBI Special Judge Darshan Singh, Chandigarh, on 6 April 2010 held Chandigarh Police sub-inspector guilty of accepting a Rs 15,000 bribe. \[name withheld\], then in-charge of the Sector 61 police post, had threatened drug peddler \[name withheld\] alias \[name withheld\] with false cases and was arrested in a CBI trap in June 2007 while accepting the cash. The court fixed the quantum of sentence for the next day; the sentence amount is not captured in this report.

**Sources (1):** [legalindia.com](https://www.legalindia.com/news/cbi-court-convicts-chandigarh-cop-for-taking-bribe)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-09-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-09-004)

## CBI v. Punjab Police AIG (then AIG, IVC) and others (t2-13-026)

**Record:** t2-13-026
**Title:** CBI v. Punjab Police AIG (then AIG, IVC) and others
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, UT, Chandigarh (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Punjab Police AIG (then AIG, IVC) and others
**Conviction:** 3 August 2018
**Incident date:** 2011-07-01 (2011)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** AIG (then AIG, IVC), Punjab Police Headquarters, Chandigarh
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 3 years + fine Rs 1,00,000

The Special Judge, CBI Chandigarh sentenced \[name withheld\] AIG \[name withheld\] to 3 years' RI for demanding Rs 3 lakh for favour in enquiries over cases against the complainant. The CBI trapped him red-handed accepting Rs 50,000 as first instalment in July 2011 and chargesheeted him in May 2012. Trap in July 2011 per registration date.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjMyMw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-026)

## CBI v. Chandigarh Police SP (then SP City, IPS) (t2-13-025)

**Record:** t2-13-025
**Title:** CBI v. Chandigarh Police SP (then SP City, IPS)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, UT, Chandigarh (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Chandigarh Police SP (then SP City, IPS)
**Conviction:** 8 August 2018
**Incident date:** 2012-10-01 (2012)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** SP (then SP City, IPS), Chandigarh Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 3 years + fine Rs 1,00,000 (convicted 08.08.2018; sentenced 10.08.2018)

The Special Judge, CBI Chandigarh convicted IPS officer, then SP (City) Chandigarh, for demanding Rs 5 lakh from an SHO-complainant for favour in a departmental enquiry, sentencing him to 3 years' RI. The CBI trapped him red-handed accepting Rs 1 lakh as first instalment in October 2012 and chargesheeted him in July 2013. Trap in October 2012 per registration date.

**Sources (2):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MTg3OQ==); [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjMyMA==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-025)

## CBI v. Punjab Police DSP (then DSP, Mohali) (t2-13-017)

**Record:** t2-13-017
**Title:** CBI v. Punjab Police DSP (then DSP, Mohali)
**Court:** Special Court for CBI Cases, Chandigarh (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Punjab Police DSP (then DSP, Mohali)
**Conviction:** 5 February 2024
**Incident date:** 2011-07-24 (2011)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** DSP (then DSP, Mohali), Punjab Police, Mohali
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 6 years + fine Rs 2,00,000 (convicted 05.02.2024; sentenced 07.02.2024)

The Special Court for CBI Cases, Chandigarh convicted \[name withheld\] DSP for demanding Rs 2 lakh and accepting Rs 1 lakh to help a complainant in FIRs against him, sentencing her to 6 years' RI with Rs 2 lakh fine. The CBI trapped and apprehended her at Chandigarh on 24.07.2011 after negotiation to Rs 1 lakh part-payment, and chargesheeted her in April 2012. Her Reader, co-accused \[name withheld\], turned approver.

**Sources (2):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NjA5Ng==); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/2801868-mohali-ex-dsp-sentenced-to-six-years-imprisonment-in-bribery-case)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-017)

## CBI v. Chandigarh Police DSP (then DSP) (t2-13-009)

**Record:** t2-13-009
**Title:** CBI v. Chandigarh Police DSP (then DSP)
**Court:** Special Court for CBI Cases, Chandigarh (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Chandigarh Police DSP (then DSP)
**Conviction:** 28 March 2025
**Incident date:** 2015-08-13 (2015)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** DSP (then DSP), Chandigarh Police (EOW matter)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\]: 7 years' RI + fine Rs 1,00,000 (convicted 28.03.2025, sentenced 29.03.2025); private co-accused \[name withheld\]: 4 years' RI + Rs 20,000

The Special Court for CBI Cases, Chandigarh convicted then-DSP \[name withheld\] of Chandigarh Police and private agent Aman Grover for a Rs 70 lakh bribe demanded for not arresting the complainant's parents in an EOW case, sentencing Meena to 7 years' RI. The CBI trapped the private accused red-handed accepting Rs 40 lakh cash plus a Rs 30 lakh post-dated cheque on 13.08.2015 and chargesheeted the accused in October 2015. A co-accused-Inspector died during trial and proceedings against him abated.

**Sources (3):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NjkwMw==); [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NjkxMw==); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/headlines/3327457-chandigarh-cbi-court-sentences-ex-dsp-accomplice-in-rs-70-lakh-bribery-case)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-009)

## State vs Chhattisgarh Police Station House Officer (t2w4-41-001)

**Record:** t2w4-41-001
**Title:** State vs Chhattisgarh Police Station House Officer
**Court:** Sessions Court, Janjgir-Champa district (Mulmula PS case; exact court designation not stated in report) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Chhattisgarh Police Station House Officer
**Conviction:** 26 February 2019
**Incident date:** 2016-09-17 (2016)
**Place:** Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302 r/w IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer, PS Mulmula, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Police; Constable, PS Mulmula, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Police; Constable, PS Mulmula, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Police; Home Guard, PS Mulmula, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Police
**Victims:** Janjgir-Champa man, age 35
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment each at trial; on appeal (Division Bench Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and \[name withheld\], July 2025) altered to 10 years rigorous imprisonment each

The trial court convicted SHO, constables and \[name withheld\] and home guard of PS Mulmula under IPC 302/34 and sentenced each to life imprisonment for the 17 September 2016 custodial death of a 35-year-old man, who was picked up drunk from the CSPDCL sub-station Nariyara, medically found injury-free, then brought dead to CHC Pamgarh with 26 external injuries. The Chhattisgarh High Court Division Bench in July 2025 held the death was culpable homicide not amounting to murder, substituted a conviction under IPC 304 Part II/34 with 10 years RI each, and affirmed the acquittal under the SC/ST Act for want of proof of \[name withheld\] knowledge.

**Sources (4):** [24law.in](https://24law.in/pdf/1753362711_3531-chhattisgarh-hc-re-state-of-chhattisgarh.pdf); [24law.in](https://24law.in/story/cruel-police-torture-led-to-custodial-death-chhattisgarh-high-court-calls-it-an-intolerable-betrayal); [chhattisgarhtopnews.com](https://chhattisgarhtopnews.com/sc-commission-notices-to-admn-on-custodial-death-of-dalit/); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/life-sentence-for-four-cops-in-custodial-death-case-667948.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-41-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-41-001)

## State of Chhattisgarh v. CRPF Constable (t2w3-21-001)

**Record:** t2w3-21-001
**Title:** State of Chhattisgarh v. CRPF Constable
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (Naxal), Dantewada (District South Bastar Dantewada) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State of Chhattisgarh v. CRPF Constable
**Conviction:** 27 August 2024
**Incident date:** 2017-12-09 (2017)
**Place:** Bijapur, Chhattisgarh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302 (four counts); IPC 307; Arms Act s.25(1B)(a); Arms Act s.27(1)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CRPF 168th Battalion, G Company, Basaguda, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh
**Victims:** Bijapur man; Bijapur man; Bijapur man; Bijapur man; Bijapur man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment on each of four s.302 counts + 10 years RI (s.307) + 2 years RI (s.25(1B)(a)) + 3 years RI (s.27(1)), all concurrent

Per the Chhattisgarh High Court appeal judgment, CRPF Constable was convicted on 27-08-2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (Naxal), Dantewada in Sessions Trial No. 104/2018 for opening fire with service rifles at the CRPF camp on 09-12-2017 over a duty-allotment grudge, killing four colleagues and injuring ASI, and was sentenced to life imprisonment plus concurrent fixed terms with fines. The Division Bench dismissed his appeal on 19-06-2025, holding that stressful Naxal-area working conditions cannot justify murder and that the injured-eyewitness testimony and premeditation proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

**Sources (3):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/cra1950241906252-1723759.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/chattisgarh-high-court/chhattisgarh-high-court-upholds-conviction-crpf-constable-murder-of-four-personnel-strenuous-conditions-naxal-area-295755); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/27/chhattisgarh-hc-upholds-conviction-crpf-personnel-killed-colleagues/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-21-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-21-001)

## CBI v. Dadra and Nagar Haveli Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w3-24-007)

**Record:** t2w3-24-007
**Title:** CBI v. Dadra and Nagar Haveli Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Silvassa (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Dadra and Nagar Haveli Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 25 June 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated (2010)
**Place:** Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B r/w PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Outpost Pipariya, Silvassa (Dadra & Nagar Haveli)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Silvassa convicted Sub-Inspector of Police Outpost Pipariya and private co-accused \[name withheld\] of criminal conspiracy and bribery, sentencing Patel to three years RI with Rs.12,000 total fine (the private accused got one year RI with Rs.2,000 fine). The release states they demanded Rs.2,000 from the complainant for not arresting him in FIR 146/10 of PS Silvassa; CBI chargesheeted both on 15.12.2010. A second CBI PR on 05.08.2013 (press-detail MzUzMw==) restates the same conviction and sentence.

**Sources (2):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzU2NA==); [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzUzMw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-007)

## State v. Delhi Police Constable at offence time (later Head Constable; retired 31.05.2008) (t2w2-10-084)

**Record:** t2w2-10-084
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Constable at offence time (later Head Constable; retired 31.05.2008)
**Court:** Court of Sessions Judge, Delhi (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Constable at offence time (later Head Constable; retired 31.05.2008)
**Conviction:** 2 February 1993
**Incident date:** 1980-01-01 (1980)
**Place:** Delhi (district not stated), Delhi
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302/34; IPC 330/34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable at offence time (later Head Constable; retired 31.05.2008), Delhi Police (unit/station not stated in writ)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment (judgment 02.02.1993; upheld through Supreme Court)

The Sessions Judge convicted Delhi Police Constable in FIR 764/1980 under sections 302/34 and 330/34 of the IPC - the murder-plus-hurt-to-extort-confession combination denoting a custodial killing - holding him guilty on 02.02.1993 and awarding life imprisonment, as recorded in the Delhi High Court's 07.01.2025 judgment (W.P.(C) 26/2025); successive appeals before the High Court and Supreme Court failed, with the SLP dismissed on 16.12.2015. He was dismissed from service on 04.01.2007 (reinstated 27.09.2009 w.e.f. 04.01.2007 after CAT relief, retiring 31.05.2008), and his entire pension and gratuity were withheld on 20.06.2017. Victim, station and incident facts are not stated in the writ. (Distinct from Ct. \[name withheld\] of t2w2-10-011 and \[name withheld\] of CC 11/06.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40761851/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-084](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-084)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Constable (joined 01.09.1972) (t2w2-10-071)

**Record:** t2w2-10-071
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Constable (joined 01.09.1972)
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Constable (joined 01.09.1972)
**Conviction:** 14 December 1999
**Incident date:** 1995-08-28 (1995)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (joined 01.09.1972), East District, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years imprisonment (sentence order 17.12.1999; fine quantum not stated in CAT order); modified on appeal 21.09.2015 to 1yr RI+Rs 5,000 (s.7) and 1yr RI+Rs 5,000 (s.13), 3 months SI in default

The Special Judge, Delhi convicted Delhi Police Constable of the East District in CBI RC 76-A/95 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act - he had been arrested by the CBI Anti-Corruption Branch on 28.08.1995 and suspended - holding him guilty on 14.12.1999 and sentencing him on 17.12.1999 to two years imprisonment, as recorded with RC number and sections in the CAT's 14.02.2019 order (OA 245/2018); the applicant's own passing reference to a 02.08.2001 judgment is contradicted by the respondents' specific account adopted in the CAT's findings. He was dismissed from service on 10.08.2006 (reinstated, dismissed again 10.06.2011, dismissal quashed by CAT; retired 31.12.2012). On 21.09.2015 the Delhi High Court decided his criminal appeal No.15/2000, upholding the conviction while modifying the sentence to one year RI with Rs 5,000 fine on each count.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116330806/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-071](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-071)

## State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2-16-011)

**Record:** t2-16-011
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 27 January 2001
**Incident date:** 1995-07-30 (1995)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 452; IPC 365
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police; Delhi Police (rank not stated in judgment), Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police; Sub-Inspector, Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police; Head Constable, Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police; Delhi Police (rank not stated in judgment), Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police; Delhi Police (rank not stated in judgment), Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police; Constable, Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police; Head Constable, Special Staff (North-East), Delhi Police
**Victims:** North East Delhi man
**Sentence:** Trial court (order 30 Jan 2001): life RI each (302/34) + 5 yr RI (452/34) + 5 yr RI (365/34) + fines; \[name withheld\] acquitted separately (18 Oct 2000)

ASJ Karkardooma on 27 January 2001 convicted eight Delhi Police Special Staff (NE) men for raiding a North East Delhi man's Dilshad Garden house on the night of 30/31 July 1995, abducting him to the Special Staff office for interrogation, and torturing him in custody till 31 July evening; he died of the injuries on 8 August 1995. Each got life plus two 5-year terms. On 14 December 2017 the Delhi High Court (Justices S. Muralidhar and I.S. Mehta, Crl.A.74/2001 & connected) converted the six surviving appellants' murder convictions to section 304-II (fatal injury not attributable to any one accused) with 8 years RI each, declining to interfere otherwise and cancelling bail for surrender. (A-1 SI and \[name withheld\] died; appeals abated/expired.)

**Sources (2):** [daaman.org](https://www.daaman.org/_files/ugd/180b2a_fe074936310b48a3b2b5f1836125bdd2.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/delhi-hc-uphold-conviction-six-policemen-custodial-death-case-says-not-much-changed-since-d-k-basu-judgment)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-16-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-16-011)

## State (CBI) v. Darshan Lal; Criminal Case No.127/99; RC No.83-A/95 (t2w2-10-039)

**Record:** t2w2-10-039
**Title:** State (CBI) v. Darshan Lal; Criminal Case No.127/99; RC No.83-A/95
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** State (CBI) v. Darshan Lal; Criminal Case No.127/99; RC No.83-A/95
**Conviction:** 30 January 2001
**Incident date:** 1995-09-21 (1995)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Darshan Lal (Assistant Sub-Inspector)
**Victims:** South West Delhi man
**Sentence:** s.7: 2yr RI+Rs 10,000; s.13: 3yr RI+Rs 10,000; concurrent (sentence order 31.01.2001; s.13 term reduced to 2yr RI on appeal)

The Special Judge, Tis Hazari convicted ASI Darshan Lal of PS Vinay Nagar on 30.01.2001 for demanding Rs 1,000 to release the complainant's cousin \[name withheld\] and his friend, threatening false implication otherwise, in CBI RC 83-A/95. He was sentenced on 31.01.2001 to two years RI under section 7 and three years RI under section 13. On 31.07.2009 Justice G.S. Sistani dismissed his appeal (Crl.A. 73/2001), reducing the section 13 term to two years RI.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13075717/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-039)

## State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (retired 30.06.2007) (t2w2-10-077)

**Record:** t2w2-10-077
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (retired 30.06.2007)
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (retired 30.06.2007)
**Conviction:** 27 February 2001
**Incident date:** 1991-05-02 (1991)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (retired 30.06.2007), PP Mangla Puri, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs 500 fine

The Special Judge, Delhi convicted ASI of PP Mangla Puri in FIR 30(A)/91 of the Anti-Corruption Branch for demanding Rs 2,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] for settling a quarrel complaint (lodged by \[name withheld\]) entrusted to him - threatening arrest unless Rs 1,000 was paid by the next evening - catching him red-handed accepting Rs 1,000, holding him guilty on 27.02.2001 under sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act and sentencing him to one year RI with Rs 500 fine, as recorded in the CAT's 23.08.2016 order (OA 100/1605/2013); he had been suspended since 02.05.1991. His criminal appeal No.177/2001 was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 25.01.2011 and the Supreme Court dismissed his SLP No.3666/2011 on 11.05.2011, maintaining the conviction. (The CAT order once misprints the trial year as 2011; the appeal number, HC/SLP dates and 2007 retirement confirm 2001.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67740834/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-077](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-077)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-11-022)

**Record:** t2w4-11-022
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 10 April 2001
**Incident date:** 1993-03-28 (1993)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) punishable under s.13(2); IPC 201 r/w 511
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, Police Station Kalkaji (also described as Govind Puri police post; South East Delhi)
**Victims:** South East Delhi resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI imposed 10-04-2001; on appeal reduced by Supreme Court (15-01-2014) to 6 months RI (s.7) + 1 year RI (s.13(1)(d)), concurrent

Per the High Court and Supreme Court judgments, ASI of Delhi Police (PS Kalkaji) was convicted on 10-04-2001 by the Special Judge, Delhi under ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act (with s.201/511 IPC) for demanding Rs 2,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] — whom he had arrested in FIR No.101/1993 under s.307 IPC on 14-03-1993 — to help him in the case (threatening to ensure conviction on non-payment), caught in the CBI trap of 28-03-1993 at his office on the complaint of 27-03-1993, and was sentenced to 3 years RI with Rs 40,000 fine. The Delhi High Court dismissed his appeal on 25-01-2011; the Supreme Court on 15-01-2014 maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum (6 months s.7 + 1 year s.13(1)(d), concurrent); appeal_status upheld.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57440879/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41896676/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-022)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (No.2979/D) (t2w2-10-027)

**Record:** t2w2-10-027
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (No.2979/D)
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (No.2979/D)
**Conviction:** 25 April 2001
**Incident date:** 1996-06-15 (1996)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d); IPC 201 r/w 511; IPC 332; IPC 224; IPC 186; IPC 353
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (No.2979/D), Police Post Shanti Nagar, PS Keshav Puram, Delhi Police
**Victims:** North West Delhi resident
**Sentence:** s.7: 2yr SI+Rs 2,000; s.13: 3yr SI+Rs 5,000; s.201 r/w 511: 3mo SI+Rs 500; s.332: 1yr SI+Rs 1,500; s.224: 6mo SI+Rs 1,000; concurrent (sentence order 26.04.2001)

The Special Judge, Tis Hazari convicted ASI of PP Shanti Nagar for demanding Rs 10,000 (scaled to Rs 5,000) from \[name withheld\] on 15.06.1996, threatening arrest in a complaint he was handling, catching him red-handed in a CBI trap, and also for obstructing/assaulting and destroying evidence during the trap. He was sentenced on 26.04.2001 to up to three years SI with fines. On 15.09.2021 Justice Anu Malhotra dismissed his appeal (CRL.A. 289/2001), upheld the conviction and withdrew the bail granted in 2001.

**Sources (2):** [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/sites/default/files/2021-09/Ram%20Naresh%20Tiwari%20vs%20CBI%20(1).pdf); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/20-years-after-granting-bail-delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-cop-in-bribery-case)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-027)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-028)

**Record:** t2w2-10-028
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 2 August 2001
**Incident date:** 1995-11-08 (1995)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Post Shakur Basti, Delhi Police
**Victims:** North West Delhi resident
**Sentence:** s.7: 2.5yr RI+Rs 10,000; s.13: 1.5yr RI+Rs 5,000; concurrent (sentence order 03.08.2001)

The Special Judge, Tis Hazari convicted ASI of PP Shakur Basti for demanding Rs 10,000 from \[name withheld\] on 08.11.1995 to not harass him over complaints and receiving Rs 5,000 the next day, in CBI Crime No.98(A)/95-DLI. He was sentenced on 03.08.2001 to two-and-a-half years RI with Rs 10,000 fine under section 7 and eighteen months RI under section 13. On 28.01.2026 Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha dismissed his appeal (CRL.A. 567/2001), holding mere delay no reason to discard the case.

**Sources (3):** [s3.courtbook.in](https://s3.courtbook.in/2026/01/BALDEV-SINGH.pdf); [lawfinder.news](https://lawfinder.news/articles/Delhi-High-Court-Upholds-Corruption-Conviction-in-Baldev-Singh-Case); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/30-years-on-delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-police-asi-accepting-5000-bribe-521029)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-028)

## State v. Delhi Police Constable (t2w2-10-086)

**Record:** t2w2-10-086
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Court:** Court of Sessions Judge, Delhi (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Conviction:** 11 September 2001
**Incident date:** 1995-12-11 (1995)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 376; IPC 354
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police
**Victims:** North West Delhi girl, age 3
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment (s.376) + Rs 50,000 fine to victim (9 months RI default) + 6 months RI (s.354), concurrent; modified on appeal 07.07.2008 to 12 years RI net (conviction maintained)

The Sessions Judge convicted Delhi Police Constable for raping and outraging the modesty of 3-1/2-year-old girl V on 11.12.1995 - taking her on the pretext of leaving her to school, carrying her covered in a khes to a tube well in village Shikarpur and raping her vaginally and orally, leaving vaginal tears needing repair under general anaesthesia and 11 days hospitalisation - holding him guilty on 11.09.2001 under sections 376 and 354 IPC, as recorded in the Delhi High Court's 07.07.2008 judgment (CRL.A. 740/2001 with CRL.A. 5/2000 batch). He was sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs 50,000 compensation and six months RI. On appeal the conviction was maintained and the appeal dismissed on merits (counsel pressing only clemency), the court reducing the life term to 12 years RI net given 11 years 9 months already undergone, satisfactory jail conduct and the deposited fine. (Distinct from \[name withheld\] of t2w2-10-011/084.)

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18498179/); [Courtkutchehry.com](https://www.Courtkutchehry.com/judgements/903699/khem-chand-and-others-vs-state-of-delhi/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/903699/khem-chand-and-others-vs-state-of-delhi/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-086](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-086)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (IO) (t2w2-10-038)

**Record:** t2w2-10-038
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (IO)
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (IO)
**Conviction:** 20 September 2001
**Incident date:** 1996-10-25 (1996)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (IO), PS Nizamuddin, Delhi Police
**Victims:** South East Delhi man
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 500 fine on each count; concurrent (sentence order 24.09.2001)

The Special Judge convicted ASI of PS Nizamuddin, IO of FIR 304/93, for demanding Rs 500 per hearing from the complainant to weaken evidence and save him, as proved through the CBI trap following the 25.10.1996 meeting. He was sentenced on 24.09.2001 to four years RI with Rs 500 fine on each count. On 23.05.2011 Justice M.L. Mehta dismissed his appeal (Crl.A. 746/2002), holding demand, acceptance and recovery amply proved, and ordered him taken into custody.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/474866/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/914724/mehkar-singh-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-038)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-053)

**Record:** t2w2-10-053
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 11 December 2002
**Incident date:** 1995-07-12 (1995)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Jahangirpuri, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years SI + Rs 2,000 fine (default SI term truncated in copy) (sentence order dated 16.12.2002, inferred from judgment of 11.12.2002)

The Special Judge convicted SI of PS Jahangirpuri on 11.12.2002 for demanding and accepting Rs 5,000 illegal gratification from \[name withheld\] on 12.07.1995 at the police station as reward for favour in a bank-fraud complaint by Samey Singh, sentencing him to two years simple imprisonment with Rs 2,000 fine. On 06.05.2011 Justice Suresh Kait dismissed his appeal (CRL.A. 995/2002), upholding the conviction and sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163706068/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-053](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-053)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-030)

**Record:** t2w2-10-030
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 10 February 2003
**Incident date:** 1995-03-09 (1995)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Vasant Kunj, Delhi Police
**Victims:** South West Delhi resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine on each count; concurrent (sentence dated 13.02.2003; fine deposited)

The Special Judge, Delhi convicted SI of PS Vasant Kunj on 10.02.2003 for demanding Rs 10,000 per month from stone-trader \[name withheld\] to let his trucks ply and accepting Rs 3,000 as first instalment in a CBI trap at the police station on 09.03.1995, with tainted notes recovered from his windcheater and positive hand/pocket washes. He was sentenced on 13.02.2003 to three years RI. On 30.09.2011 Justice Rajiv Shakdher dismissed his appeal (Crl.A. 129/2003) and ordered him taken into custody.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/758733/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-030)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer) (t2w2-10-075)

**Record:** t2w2-10-075
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer)
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer)
**Conviction:** 11 February 2003
**Incident date:** 1996-09-21 (1996)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer), Delhi Police (IO of FIR 645/1996, PS Gokul Puri)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Quantum not stated in appellate judgment or CAT order (sentence order 13.02.2003; sustained on appeal)

The Special Judge, Tis Hazari convicted ASI in CC 26/97 (RC 72(A)/96) for demanding Rs 2,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] - warning it be paid by 5 pm on 21.09.1996 failing which he would face serious trouble in FIR 645/1996 (ss.308/323/34 IPC, PS Gokul Puri) which \[name withheld\] was investigating - catching him in a CBI ACB trap the same day with the tainted Rs 2,000 recovered from his right pant pocket, holding him guilty on 11.02.2003 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. He was sentenced on 13.02.2003. On 21.04.2011 Justice Rajiv Shakdher dismissed his appeal (CRL.A. 113/2003, (2011) 179 DLT 664), sustaining the conviction and sentence and ordering him taken into custody; he was dismissed from service on 18.08.2011. (The CAT's 09.08.2016 order misprints the trial year as 2013; the High Court confirms 2003.)

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1136707/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/135488057/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-075](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-075)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (No.D-2923; retired 30.09.2007) (t2w2-10-076)

**Record:** t2w2-10-076
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (No.D-2923; retired 30.09.2007)
**Court:** Court of Sh. R.K. Gauba, Special Judge, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (No.D-2923; retired 30.09.2007)
**Conviction:** 14 July 2003
**Incident date:** 1995-01-01 (1995)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (No.D-2923; retired 30.09.2007), South West District, Delhi Police (DCP South West respondent)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 500 fine on each count (ss.7 and 13(2))

Special Judge R.K. Gauba, Delhi convicted Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (No.D-2923) in CBI RC 61(A)/95-DLI on charges of accepting and obtaining Rs 4,000 illegal gratification from the complainant through Virender Kumar acting on his behalf, both apprehended by the raiding party, holding him guilty on 14.07.2003 and sentencing him to four years RI with Rs 500 fine on each count under sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act, as quoted from the Rule-9 show-cause notice in the CAT's 04.10.2018 order (OA 2169/2017). His criminal appeal No.461/2003 was rejected by the Delhi High Court on 27.11.2013, upholding the conviction. He retired on superannuation on 30.09.2007; pension and gratuity were forfeited after the conviction attained finality.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169054382/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-076](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-076)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-009)

**Record:** t2w2-10-009
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (2003; Rouse Avenue Courts did not exist then) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 21 August 2003
**Incident date:** 1995-09-25 (1995)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1947 s.7; PC Act 1947 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Jama Masjid, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 500 fine under each provision (3 months RI in default)

The Special Judge, Tis Hazari convicted SI of PS Jama Masjid in CC No.57/1996 for demanding Rs 5,000 illegal gratification on 25.09.1995 from PW1 for not taking adverse action against him in fake-university-degrees Crime No.187/95 which he was investigating, with the CBI recovering tainted Rs 4,000 at Tis Hazari Courts from a head constable who took it at the SI's instance (complaint 06.10.1995), holding him guilty on 21.08.2003 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, 1947. He was sentenced to four years RI with Rs 500 fine under each provision. On 02.02.2026 Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha dismissed his appeal (CRL.A. 733/2002). (Row merged in Pass 1-resume with ex-029, an internal duplicate.)

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/76002022026crla7332002105024-653740.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-police-sub-inspector-in-1995-cbi-bribery-trap-case-521774)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-009)

## State v. Central Delhi Police Constable (at time of offence) (t2w2-14-012)

**Record:** t2w2-14-012
**Title:** State v. Central Delhi Police Constable (at time of offence)
**Court:** Sessions Court, Delhi (FIR No. 430/91, PS Lahori Gate; exact ASJ court not stated in HC judgment) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Central Delhi Police Constable (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 6 January 2004
**Incident date:** 1991-05-02 (1991)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 330; IPC 348; IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (at time of offence), Lahori Gate Police Station, Delhi; Sub-Inspector, Lahori Gate Police Station, Delhi; Inspector (SHO), Lahori Gate Police Station, Delhi
**Victims:** Central Delhi man; Central Delhi man
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\]: life + Rs 80,000 fine (302), 2 years RI + Rs 1,000 (330), 6 months RI + Rs 500 (348); \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\]: 5 years RI + Rs 50,000 fine each (304-II/34)

The Sessions Court, Delhi (FIR No. 430/91, PS Lahori Gate) on 6 January 2004 convicted three Delhi Police officers for beating to death a Central Delhi man, a peon-cum-watchman picked up on the night of 1 May 1991 and assaulted on the second floor of Lahori Gate police station on 2 May 1991 — Constable demanding Rs 500 then Rs 5,000 from the victim's father for his release — until he vomited blood, dying of his injuries at St. Stephen Hospital on 10 May 1991; charges had been framed in 1997 (304-II/34, 330/348/34) with an additional murder charge in October 2002. \[name withheld\] received life imprisonment (302) plus terms under sections 330 and 348, while SHO Inspector and SI received five years RI each under section 304-II/34. The Delhi High Court (Justices G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Crl.A. Nos. 54, 81, 198 of 2004, 3 January 2018) upheld the convictions and sentences of \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] but acquitted \[name withheld\]; private co-convict Manohar Lal Narang died pending appeal.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43971311/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-14-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-14-012)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-065)

**Record:** t2w2-10-065
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 19 March 2004
**Incident date:** 1996-07-12 (1996)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Post Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** s.7: 1yr RI+Rs 10,000 (3 months default); s.13: 2.5yr RI+Rs 25,000 (6 months default)

The Special Judge, Delhi convicted ASI of the Tis Hazari police post in CC No.32/1997 for demanding and accepting Rs 1,000 illegal gratification on 12.07.1996 from PW5 as reward for accepting a bail bond executed pursuant to an anticipatory bail order, holding him guilty on 19.03.2004 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act (RC 58(A)/96-DLI, in which SI was a co-accused). He was sentenced to one year RI under section 7 and two-and-a-half years RI under section 13 with fines. On 02.04.2026 Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha dismissed his appeal (CRL.A. 229/2004).

**Sources (1):** [pub-cc8438e664ef4d32a54c800c7c408282.r2.dev](https://pub-cc8438e664ef4d32a54c800c7c408282.r2.dev/f7b520b8-28ae-4530-a936-226a7daba912.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-065](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-065)

## State v. Delhi Police Constable (t2w2-10-004)

**Record:** t2w2-10-004
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Delhi (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Conviction:** 26 October 2004
**Incident date:** 1994-07-26 (1994)
**Place:** South Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sections 7 and 13, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (per LiveLaw: conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13 PC Act; ACB trap — NOT a 'CBI chargesheet before CMM Tis Hazari', and sections ARE stated)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, PS Mehrauli, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs 1,000 fine on each count (2 months RI in default); concurrent

The Special Judge, Delhi convicted Constable of PS Mehrauli in CC No.56/1998 for demanding and accepting Rs 1,000 illegal gratification on 26.07.1994 from informant \[name withheld\] for returning his identity card seized during checking at Aaya Nagar, catching him in an Anti-Corruption Branch trap (Crime No.20/1994 on the 30.07.1994 complaint), holding him guilty on 26.10.2004 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. He was sentenced to one year RI with Rs 1,000 fine on each count, concurrent. On 27.04.2026 Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha dismissed his appeal (CRL.A. 862/2004) on merits, upholding the conviction.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/27/76027042026crla8622004151433-670237.pdf); [courtbook.in](https://courtbook.in/posts/delhi-hc-constable-bribery-conviction-upheld); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-police-constables-conviction-for-accepting-1000-bribe-32-years-ago-531963)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-004)

## CBI vs Haryana Police Superintendent of Police (Indian Police Service, Haryana cadre) and others (t2w4-21-002)

**Record:** t2w4-21-002
**Title:** CBI vs Haryana Police Superintendent of Police (Indian Police Service, Haryana cadre) and others
**Court:** Court of Shri Manoj Jain, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Haryana Police Superintendent of Police (Indian Police Service, Haryana cadre) and others
**Conviction:** 6 July 2005
**Incident date:** 1986-01-01 (1986)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 420
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police (Indian Police Service, Haryana cadre), Haryana Police (IPS)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Convicted 06.07.2005; sentence deferred to 12.07.2005 (quantum not stated in PR)

The CBI press release dated 06.07.2005 states that Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Shri Manoj Jain, Delhi convicted IPS officer (Haryana cadre, then serving as \[name withheld\] of Police) under section 420 IPC for securing appointment to the Indian Police Service on a false \[name withheld\] ('Adi Dharmi') certificate obtained from the Deputy Commissioner's office, Delhi. The release records that \[name withheld\], of the \[name withheld\]-Rajput community, first entered the Central Information Service on the false certificate in 1984 and joined the IPS in 1986 after a CBI case registered 30.10.1986 and chargesheet of 26.02.1987; after a 17-year trial his co-accused were acquitted and sentence was fixed for 12.07.2005.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20090905112900id_/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/PRelease2005/p06july05.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-21-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-21-002)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-060)

**Record:** t2w2-10-060
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Special Judge (CBI), Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 10 November 2006
**Incident date:** 1993-01-01 (1993)
**Place:** Delhi (district not stated), Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(ii) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Special Branch, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1yr RI+Rs 500 (120B, 15 days SI default); 2yr RI+Rs 1,000 (s.13, 30 days SI default); concurrent (sentence order 13.11.2006)

The Special Judge (CBI), Delhi convicted ASI of the Special Branch on 10.11.2006 for conspiring in 1993 with three others to get passports issued to A3/A4 on forged ration cards and fictitious addresses, preparing false police verification reports certifying the particulars as genuine; the CBI registered its FIR in 1995 and he had been dismissed from service on 31.10.1995. He was sentenced on 13.11.2006 to one year RI under section 120B and two years RI under section 13 of the PC Act. On 05.05.2026 Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha dismissed his appeal (CRL.A. 1063/2006), upholding the conviction.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/06/76005052026crla10632006123632-672221.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-ex-cop-in-33-year-old-fake-passport-verification-case-533161)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-060](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-060)

## State v. Delhi Police Inspector (SHO) and others (t2w2-10-062)

**Record:** t2w2-10-062
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Inspector (SHO) and others
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Inspector (SHO) and others
**Conviction:** 13 December 2006
**Incident date:** 1987-08-24 (1987)
**Place:** Shahdara, Delhi
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 342; IPC 120B; IPC 217; IPC 218; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector (SHO), PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi Police; Police officer (rank not stated in opened sources), PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi Police; Sub-Inspector, PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Shahdara man; Shahdara man
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\]: death sentence (15.12.2006) → 8yr RI+Rs 2L (HC 05.03.2008) → 5yr RI+Rs 5L compensation (SC 12.11.2009); \[name withheld\]/\[name withheld\] sentence quanta not stated in opened sources

The Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma convicted SHO of PS Vivek Vihar on 13.12.2006 under sections 302/342/120B IPC for the custodial beating-death of \[name withheld\] - picked up with a Shahdara man on 24.08.1987 in revenge for stabbing Ct Rishipal on Janmashtami (16.08.1987), beaten at his instance, \[name withheld\] dying the next day - sentencing him to death on 15.12.2006, and convicted \[name withheld\] (s.217) and SI (ss.218/201) for shielding; the case reached trial only via the deceased father's complaint after an 'untraced' report. On 05.03.2008 the High Court declined the death reference, converting \[name withheld\] to section 304-II with 8 years RI, and on 12.11.2009 the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction, reducing the term to 5 years RI with Rs 5 lakh compensation to \[name withheld\]'s mother.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1316909/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/490607/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/390336/tej-singh-appellant-hash-state-and-another-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-062](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-062)

## State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (No.D/3264; Immigration Officer) (t2w2-10-064)

**Record:** t2w2-10-064
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (No.D/3264; Immigration Officer)
**Court:** Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (No.D/3264; Immigration Officer)
**Conviction:** 12 February 2007
**Incident date:** 1998-09-11 (1998)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** extortion
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 384; Passports Act 1967 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (No.D/3264; Immigration Officer), Immigration, IGI Airport, Delhi Police
**Victims:** South West Delhi woman; South West Delhi man
**Sentence:** Imprisonment till rising of the court (appeal dismissed by ASJ 21.08.2007)

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate convicted SI (No.D/3264), Immigration Officer at IGI Airport, on 12.02.2007 for extorting 500 US dollars on 11.09.1998 from honeymoon passengers Era and a South West Delhi man (flight MK-745) by tearing the visa page out of Era's passport, claiming the torn page was an offence, and threatening arrest and offloading unless paid, in FIR 433/98 under section 384 IPC and section 12 of the Passports Act. He was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal on 21.08.2007 and he was dismissed from service on 09.01.2008.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125844966/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92978307/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-064](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-064)

## West Delhi Resident vs Ram Kumar; FIR No. 524/98, PS Janak Puri (t2-15-006)

**Record:** t2-15-006
**Title:** West Delhi Resident vs Ram Kumar; FIR No. 524/98, PS Janak Puri
**Court:** Court of Sh. Gurvinder Pal Singh, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** West Delhi Resident vs Ram Kumar; FIR No. 524/98, PS Janak Puri
**Conviction:** 30 June 2007
**Incident date:** 1996-08-28 (1996)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 409
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ram Kumar (Assistant Sub-Inspector (retired 31 July 2002; joined Delhi Police 1961))
**Victims:** West Delhi resident
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 15,000 fine (in default 1 year SI, consecutive) u/s 409 IPC

ACMM \[name withheld\] convicted Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector Ram Kumar under section 409 IPC for criminal breach of trust as a public servant, for dishonestly misappropriating liquor bottles seized as case property in five Excise Act cases of PS Janak Puri instead of depositing them with the malkhana. The court held he had dominion over the property and converted it to his own use. Despite his age (65) and long service, he was sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment with Rs 15,000 fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153236505/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-15-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-15-006)

## State v. Delhi Police Constable (suspended) (t2w4-11-021)

**Record:** t2w4-11-021
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Constable (suspended)
**Court:** Court of Sh. Sunil Gaur, Special Judge, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Constable (suspended)
**Conviction:** 7 July 2007
**Incident date:** 2000-03-25 (2000)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (suspended), Delhi Police (r/o Village Nanglia Gujrawas, Khetri, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years 6 months RI, with s.428 CrPC set-off

Per the trial judgment, suspended Constable of Delhi Police was convicted on 07-07-2007 by the Special Judge, Delhi under s.12 of the PC Act for offering Rs 19,000 (38 notes of Rs 500 in a pinned yellow envelope delivered via on-duty Constable at the residence) to Addl. Commissioner of Police R.K. Sharma on 25-03-2000 to get himself reinstated on duty (FIR No.16/2000), and was sentenced on 09-07-2007 to 3.5 years RI with Rs 10,000 fine. No appeal traced; appeal status unknown. (Different person-case from the 2019 \[name withheld\] conviction in t2w2-10-046.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156729402/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-021)

## CBI RC No.10(S)/97-SIU.V/SIC-II: State through CBI vs Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police (t2-14-004)

**Record:** t2-14-004
**Title:** CBI RC No.10(S)/97-SIU.V/SIC-II: State through CBI vs Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** CBI RC No.10(S)/97-SIU.V/SIC-II: State through CBI vs Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police
**Conviction:** 24 October 2007
**Incident date:** 1997-03-31 (1997)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307; IPC 34; IPC 120B; IPC 193; IPC 201; IPC 203
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police (Crime); Inspector, Delhi Police; Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police; Head Constable, Delhi Police (Crime); Head Constable, Delhi Police; Head Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police (Crime); Constable, Delhi Police (Crime); Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police (DAP/Crime)
**Victims:** New Delhi man; New Delhi man; New Delhi man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment for all 10 (guilt pronounced 16 October 2007, sentence 24 October 2007); 7 years RI components and fines; conviction attained finality

The Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House, held 10 Delhi Police officials led by ACP S.\[name withheld\] guilty on 16 October 2007 for the staged 1997 Connaught Place shootout and sentenced them to life imprisonment on 24 October 2007. The FIR was transferred to the CBI the day after the shooting (RC No.10(S)/97), and the CBI chargesheeted the police party for murder, attempt to murder and conspiracy. The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction on 18 September 2009 and the Supreme Court confirmed it on 2 May 2011 in \[name withheld\] v. \[name withheld\] through CBI; a 2022 Delhi High Court order records the conviction as having 'achieved finality'.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1043602/sunil-kumar-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-and-others/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/delhi-high-court-compensation-victim-1997-cp-shootout-197848)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-14-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-14-004)

## State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others (t2w2-10-051)

**Record:** t2w2-10-051
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 20 November 2007
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Crime Cell, Central District, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2.5 years RI u/s 7 (with fine, quantum not stated); 3 years RI u/s 13(2) (sentence suspended by trial court pending appeal)

The Special Judge, Delhi convicted SI \[name withheld\] of the Central District Crime Cell on 17.10.2007 for demanding a bribe from the complainant to hush up FIR No.99/1998 of PS Karol Bagh which he was investigating, catching him red-handed with Rs 5,000 tainted money with positive hand and pocket washes in an Anti-Corruption trap. He was sentenced to two-and-a-half years RI under section 7 and three years RI under section 13. On 20.11.2007 Justice S.N. Dhingra heard his section 389 suspension application (CRL.MA 12784/2007); the final appeal outcome is not traced.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/382778/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-051](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-051)

## State v. Delhi Police Constable (Executive; joined 01.05.1994) and others (t2w2-10-063)

**Record:** t2w2-10-063
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Constable (Executive; joined 01.05.1994) and others
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Constable (Executive; joined 01.05.1994) and others
**Conviction:** 4 December 2007
**Incident date:** 2000-04-17 (2000)
**Place:** Delhi (district not stated), Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (Executive; joined 01.05.1994), Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine (3 months in default)

The Special Judge, Delhi convicted Delhi Police Constable (Executive) \[name withheld\] on 04.12.2007 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act in FIR No.20/2000 dated 17.04.2000, for which he had been suspended since the FIR date, sentencing him to three years RI with Rs 5,000 fine, as recorded in the CAT's 10.01.2008 common order (OA 58/2008, V.K. Bali). His appeal stood admitted and pending before the Delhi High Court at the time of the CAT order.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/317119/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-063](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-063)

## State v. Delhi Police Woman Sub-Inspector and others (t2w2-10-073)

**Record:** t2w2-10-073
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Woman Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Woman Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 24 January 2008
**Incident date:** 1999-09-15 (1999)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Woman Sub-Inspector, PS Vasant Vihar, Delhi Police; Constable, PS Vasant Vihar, Delhi Police
**Victims:** South West Delhi boy, age 16; South West Delhi man
**Sentence:** Not stated in CAT order (convicted 24.01.2008; sentence quantum not traced)

The Special Judge, Delhi convicted W/SI \[name withheld\] and Constable of PS Vasant Vihar on 24.01.2008 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act in FIR 35/1999 of the Anti-Corruption Branch, for illegally detaining 16-year-old \[name withheld\], son of complainant \[name withheld\], at the police station for the whole day on 15.09.1999 with cruel treatment and demanding Rs 10,000 plus a 9-gram gold ring for his release - settled at Rs 5,000 with a 5-gram ring handed to \[name withheld\], plus a further Rs 4,000 demand for returning the ring and hushing up the case - as recorded in the CAT's 05.10.2016 order (OA 100/34/2013). \[name withheld\] concealed the conviction from the department; a departmental enquiry launched 06.08.2009 ended in dismissal (08.08.2012, upheld 21.11.2012), which the CAT upheld. Sentence quantum and criminal-appeal status are not stated in the order.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137642928/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-073](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-073)

## State v. Surender Singh (Mayur Vihar PS shooting, FIR 30.06.2002) (t2w2-10-040)

**Record:** t2w2-10-040
**Title:** State v. Surender Singh (Mayur Vihar PS shooting, FIR 30.06.2002)
**Court:** Sessions Court, Delhi (Mayur Vihar case; exact ASJ court not stated in appellate judgments) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Surender Singh (Mayur Vihar PS shooting, FIR 30.06.2002)
**Conviction:** 28 January 2008
**Incident date:** 2002-06-30 (2002)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307
**Officers (gated display forms):** Surender Singh (Constable (santri/police guard))
**Victims:** East Delhi man; East Delhi resident
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment (s.302) + 7 years RI (s.307)

The trial court convicted on-duty police-guard Constable Surender Singh on 28.01.2008 for firing indiscriminately with his issued SAF carbine at the gate of PS Mayur Vihar on 30.06.2002, killing relative an East Delhi man and injuring HC, holding it intentional murder and rejecting self-defence. He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus seven years RI. The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction on 18.05.2011 (Crl.A. 202/2008) and the Supreme Court confirmed it on 03.07.2024 (2024 INSC 462).

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/805295/); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/amp/top-stories/man-killed-inside-police-station-supreme-court-upholds-conviction-constable); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/surender-singh-v-statewatermark-1635732.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-040)

## State v. Delhi Police Constable (t2w4-11-019)

**Record:** t2w4-11-019
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Court:** Court of Sh. A.S. Yadav, Special Judge, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Conviction:** 22 July 2008
**Incident date:** 2001-02-13 (2001)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) punishable under s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police, Police Station Prasad Nagar (Central Delhi)
**Victims:** Central Delhi resident
**Sentence:** 2 years RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(2)), concurrent, with s.428 CrPC set-off

Per the trial judgment, Constable of Delhi Police (PS Prasad Nagar) was convicted on 22-07-2008 by the Special Judge, Delhi under ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act for demanding Rs 3,000 (Rs 1,000 as part payment on 13-02-2001 near the Mata Rameshwari Nehru Nagar police booth) from complainant \[name withheld\] to not implicate him in a false case, in the trap laid after a Central Delhi resident reported to ACP (Sub-Division Karol Bagh) on 13-02-2001 (FIR No.49/2001), with the tainted notes routed through vegetable vendor Mahender Kumar, and was sentenced on 24-07-2008 to 2 years RI with Rs 5,000 fine on each count (concurrent). No appeal traced; appeal status unknown.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48412271/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-019)

## State v. Delhi Police Constable (t2w4-11-018)

**Record:** t2w4-11-018
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Court:** Court of Sh. A.S. Yadav, Special Judge, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Conviction:** 29 September 2008
**Incident date:** 2004-03-18 (2004)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) punishable under s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police, Police Station Shakarpur (East Delhi)
**Victims:** East Delhi resident
**Sentence:** 2 years RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(2)), concurrent, with s.428 CrPC set-off

Per the trial judgment, Constable of Delhi Police (PS Shakarpur) was convicted on 29-09-2008 by the Special Judge, Delhi under ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act for demanding Rs 10,000 (Rs 3,000 as first instalment at the third-floor barrack of PS Shakarpur on 18-03-2004) from a loan applicant to not arrest him over allegedly forged income-tax returns submitted with a Rs 50,000 loan application to Shanti Business Center, Laxmi Nagar, in the ACB trap laid on FIR No.14/04 with phenolphthalein-treated notes, and was sentenced on 30-09-2008 to 2 years RI with Rs 10,000 fine on each count (concurrent). No appeal traced; appeal status unknown.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9225871/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-018)

## State v. Delhi Police Constable (t2w4-11-017)

**Record:** t2w4-11-017
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Court:** Court of Sh. A.S. Yadav, Special Judge, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Conviction:** 7 November 2008
**Incident date:** 2004-03-24 (2004)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) punishable under s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police (beat constable, Raghubir Nagar area, West Delhi)
**Victims:** West Delhi man
**Sentence:** 2 years RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(2)), concurrent, with s.428 CrPC set-off

Per the trial judgment, Constable of Delhi Police was convicted on 07-11-2008 by the Special Judge, Delhi under ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act for demanding Rs 5,000 (Rs 1,000 as first instalment) with beat constables and \[name withheld\] from complainant \[name withheld\] of M/s R.K. Soft Drinks, Raghubir Nagar, threatening to get his lemon-soda factory sealed, in the ACB trap of 24-03-2004 laid on FIR No.15/04 with phenolphthalein-treated notes, and was sentenced on 10-11-2008 to 2 years RI with Rs 10,000 fine on each count (concurrent). No appeal traced; appeal status unknown. (Different person-case from SI of PS Palam Village, acquitted 30-10-2013, and from Constable of PP Nihal Vihar in t2w4-11-009.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78312964/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-017)

## State v. Delhi Police Constable (t2w2-10-036)

**Record:** t2w2-10-036
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Court:** Court of Sh. A.S. Yadav, Special Judge, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Conviction:** 5 December 2008
**Incident date:** 2001-10-04 (2001)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police, West District (Nangloi/Bamrola area; sanction by DCP West)
**Victims:** West Delhi resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine u/s 7; 3 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine u/s 13(2); concurrent; s.428 benefit (sentence order 06.12.2008)

Special Judge A.S. Yadav, Delhi convicted Constable for demanding Rs 3,000 (settled at Rs 2,000) from \[name withheld\] to allow his plot construction at Bamrola to proceed, threatening false implication and demolition, as proved through the ACB trap of 04.10.2001. Sanction for his prosecution was accorded by the DCP West District. He was sentenced on 06.12.2008 to concurrent three-year RI terms with Rs 10,000 total fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33641456/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-036)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (Executive; 1991 batch) (t2w2-10-074)

**Record:** t2w2-10-074
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (Executive; 1991 batch)
**Court:** Court of Special Judge (CBI-01), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (Executive; 1991 batch)
**Conviction:** 22 December 2008
**Incident date:** 2002-01-01 (2002)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Executive; 1991 batch), PS Hari Nagar, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + fine (fine quantum not stated in CAT order) (sentence order 24.12.2008; suspended 14.09.2009 pending appeal)

Special Judge (CBI-01) Tis Hazari convicted Delhi Police Sub-Inspector, posted at PS Hari Nagar, in CBI RC 36(A)/2002 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act for demanding and accepting illegal gratification, holding him guilty on 22.12.2008 and sentencing him on 24.12.2008 to two years RI with fine, as recorded in the CAT's 03.03.2026 order (OA 2546/2025). He filed criminal appeal No.29/2009 before the Delhi High Court, which suspended the sentence on 14.09.2009 and released him on Rs 25,000 bond; the appeal was still pending and the conviction not set aside when the CAT decided the OA. He was dismissed from service on 19.09.2024.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25255924/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-074](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-074)

## State v. Delhi Police Constable (No.1233/W) and others (t2w2-10-032)

**Record:** t2w2-10-032
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Constable (No.1233/W) and others
**Court:** Trial Court, Delhi (exact court not stated in CAT order) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Constable (No.1233/W) and others
**Conviction:** 16 February 2009
**Incident date:** 2004-07-24 (2004)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (No.1233/W), PS Tilak Nagar, Delhi Police
**Victims:** West Delhi resident
**Sentence:** Not stated in CAT order (trial judgment 16.02.2009; sentence quantum not traced)

The trial court convicted Constable of PS Tilak Nagar on 16.02.2009 for demanding Rs 5,000 (settled at Rs 2,000) from bus owner \[name withheld\] to hush up a section 506 case over a quarrel with a traffic ZO, catching him red-handed accepting the money inside the police station in an ACB trap on 24.07.2004; co-accused ASI was acquitted. The facts are recorded in the CAT's 07.02.2012 order in his dismissal challenge. His criminal appeal was pending then; present status unknown.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134823223/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-032)

## State v. Udai Beer Singh; CC No.171/01; FIR No.19/2001, PS ACB (t2w2-10-012)

**Record:** t2w2-10-012
**Title:** State v. Udai Beer Singh; CC No.171/01; FIR No.19/2001, PS ACB
**Court:** Court of Sh. A.S. Yadav, Special Judge, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Udai Beer Singh; CC No.171/01; FIR No.19/2001, PS ACB
**Conviction:** 8 July 2009
**Incident date:** 2001-03-29 (2001)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Udai Beer Singh (Head Constable (beat constable))
**Victims:** North East Delhi man
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs 2,000 fine u/s 7; 1 year RI + Rs 2,000 fine u/s 13(2); concurrent; s.428 benefit (sentence order 09.07.2009)

Special Judge A.S. Yadav, Delhi convicted Head Constable Udai Beer Singh for demanding and accepting Rs 800 from bus conductor \[name withheld\] to close a monkey-bite complaint, catching him in an ACB trap on 29.03.2001 with tainted notes recovered from his uniform pant pocket and positive hand/pocket washes. The court rejected the defence that the money was thrust into his pocket, holding the demand-and-acceptance proved. He was sentenced on 09.07.2009 to concurrent one-year RI terms with Rs 4,000 total fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149103905/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-012)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-22-001)

**Record:** t2w4-22-001
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Sh. Pradeep Chaddah, Special Judge (CBI-01), Central District, Delhi (judgment header and signature render CHADDAH) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 18 September 2009
**Incident date:** 2003-01-08 (2003)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, PS Badarpur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Unknown (47-page conviction judgment ends at finding of guilt, para 59; sentence was via separate order not located)

The Court of Sh. Pradeep Chaddah, Special Judge (CBI-01), Central District Delhi, in C.C. No.245/07 (RC 2(A)/03) delivered judgment on 18 September 2009 holding Sub-Inspector, then posted at PS Badarpur, Delhi Police, guilty and convicting him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court found that on 8 January 2003 \[name withheld\] demanded Rs.5,000 (scaled down to Rs.1,000) from complainant \[name withheld\] as illegal gratification for not implicating him in a murder case, and that the CBI trapped and caught him accepting the bribe money the same day. The sentence was imposed by a separate order which is not part of the judgment copy on record, and no appeal outcome is known.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160625136/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-22-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-22-001)

## State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (No.905/D) (t2w2-10-055)

**Record:** t2w2-10-055
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (No.905/D)
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (No.905/D)
**Conviction:** 21 October 2009
**Incident date:** 2005-03-17 (2005)
**Place:** North Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (No.905/D), Burari Chowki, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years imprisonment + Rs 5,000 fine u/s 7; 2 years + Rs 5,000 u/s 13(2); concurrent (3 months SI in default per count)

The Special Judge, Delhi convicted ASI (No.905/D) on 21.10.2009 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act for demanding and accepting Rs 2,000 bribe, fixing 5-6 PM for payment and caught red-handed by the Anti-Corruption Branch on 17.03.2005 at Burari Chowki with the money recovered before panch witness \[name withheld\], as recorded in the CAT's 05.03.2013 order (OA 3834/2011) quoting the Delhi High Court's WP(C) 1079/2011 order. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment with Rs 5,000 fine on each count, concurrent. A prior departmental dismissal (21.02.2008) was also upheld; the criminal appeal status is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134047366/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-055](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-055)

## State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (Exe., No.D-1075) (t2w2-10-079)

**Record:** t2w2-10-079
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (Exe., No.D-1075)
**Court:** Court of Special Judge (PC Act)-06, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (Exe., No.D-1075)
**Conviction:** 18 November 2009
**Incident date:** 1997-07-10 (1997)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Exe., No.D-1075), PS IGI Airport, Delhi Police
**Victims:** South West Delhi man; South West Delhi man
**Sentence:** 3yr RI+Rs 10,000 (s.7); 3yr RI+Rs 10,000 (s.13); concurrent; s.428 benefit (judgment 18.11.2009)

Special Judge (PC Act)-06 Tis Hazari convicted Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (No.D-1075) of PS IGI Airport in FIR 28/1997 of the Anti-Corruption Branch for demanding Rs 2 lakh from a South West Delhi man - whose brother \[name withheld\] he had detained and then falsely arrested on 11.07.1997 in passport-fraud FIR 223/97 which he was investigating - accepting Rs 1 lakh, and demanding a further Rs 50,000 while threatening to implicate the evading brother \[name withheld\] with forged passports and fake stamps, holding him guilty on 18.11.2009 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. He was sentenced the same day to three years RI with Rs 10,000 fine on each count, concurrent. A departmental enquiry was ordered against him on 08.04.2010; criminal-appeal status is not stated in the CAT's 22.03.2011 order (OA 1830/2010).

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143866173/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-079](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-079)

## State v. Delhi Police Constable (t2w4-11-009)

**Record:** t2w4-11-009
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Court:** Court of Sh. A.S. Yadav, Special Judge, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Constable
**Conviction:** 15 January 2010
**Incident date:** 2004-12-01 (2004)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) punishable under s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Police, Police Post Nihal Vihar, Nangloi (West Delhi)
**Victims:** West Delhi man
**Sentence:** 2 years RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(2)), concurrent, with s.428 CrPC set-off

Per the trial judgment, Constable of Delhi Police (PP Nihal Vihar) was convicted on 15-01-2010 by the Special Judge, Delhi under ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act for demanding Rs 500 from complainant \[name withheld\], an egg-\[name withheld\] with a rehri near a Nihal Vihar liquor shop, to let him vend there (threatening to stop him otherwise), in the ACB trap of 01-12-2004 laid on FIR No.60/04 with phenolphthalein-treated notes, and was sentenced on 16-01-2010 to 2 years RI with Rs 20,000 fine on each count (concurrent). No appeal traced; appeal status unknown. (Co-demander Constable was not before this court in CC No.02/09.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197060375/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-009)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (Exe., No.D-3236; VII Bn DAP at CAT stage) (t2w2-10-078)

**Record:** t2w2-10-078
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (Exe., No.D-3236; VII Bn DAP at CAT stage)
**Court:** Court of Special Judge (CBI), New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (Exe., No.D-3236; VII Bn DAP at CAT stage)
**Conviction:** 23 March 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** South Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Exe., No.D-3236; VII Bn DAP at CAT stage), Delhi Police (departmental enquiry by DCP South District)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2yr RI+Rs 5,000 (s.7, 6 months RI default); 2yr RI+Rs 5,000 (s.13, 6 months RI default); concurrent (sentence order 26.03.2010; suspended 08.04.2010)

Special Judge (CBI) New Delhi held Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (No.D-3236) guilty on 23.03.2010 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act and sentenced him on 26.03.2010 to two years RI with Rs 5,000 fine on each count, concurrent, as recorded in the CAT's 04.01.2011 order (OA 4362/2010); the FIR number, bribe facts and offence-time posting are not stated in the order, though he had been dismissed on 29.05.2006 (reinstated after CAT/HC orders) and faced a departmental enquiry from DCP South from 12.01.2009. He filed a criminal appeal before the Delhi High Court, which suspended the sentence on 08.04.2010 on Rs 10,000 bond pending final decision. (Distinct from Ct. \[name withheld\] of PS Neb Sarai, t2w2-10-013.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6207294/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-078](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-078)

## CBI vs Zile Singh; AC No. 05/04; RC DAI 2003 A 0068 (t2-15-011)

**Record:** t2-15-011
**Title:** CBI vs Zile Singh; AC No. 05/04; RC DAI 2003 A 0068
**Court:** Court of Sh. P.S. Teji, District Judge (East) / Special Judge (CBI), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Zile Singh; AC No. 05/04; RC DAI 2003 A 0068
**Conviction:** 6 August 2010
**Incident date:** 2003-12-29 (2003)
**Place:** Shahdara, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Zile Singh (Sub-Inspector)
**Victims:** Shahdara man
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 7; 3 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 13; concurrent; section 428 benefit

Special Judge (CBI) Karkardooma convicted Delhi Police Sub-Inspector Zile Singh of PS Mansarover Park for demanding and accepting Rs 2,000 bribe from complainant \[name withheld\] for not implicating him in a false case, caught red-handed with the bribe recovered from his possession. The court held him guilty under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to concurrent three years rigorous imprisonment with Rs 20,000 total fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106782853/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-15-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-15-011)

## State v. Delhi Traffic Police Constable (t2w2-10-020)

**Record:** t2w2-10-020
**Title:** State v. Delhi Traffic Police Constable
**Court:** Court of Shri V.K. Maheshwari, Special Judge (CBI), Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Traffic Police Constable
**Conviction:** 7 September 2010
**Incident date:** 2007-06-12 (2007)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Traffic Police, Azadpur Traffic Light
**Victims:** North West Delhi resident
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine u/s 7; 4 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine u/s 13(2); concurrent; s.428 benefit (sentence order 08.09.2010)

Special Judge V.K. Maheshwari, Delhi convicted Delhi Traffic Police Constable of Azadpur Traffic Light for demanding and accepting Rs 300 bribe to release the complainant's seized scooter-rickshaw, upholding the ACB trap recovery even though the complainant turned hostile. The court held corruption by public servants must be dealt with an iron hand. He was sentenced on 08.09.2010 to concurrent four-year RI terms with Rs 20,000 total fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128207701/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-020)

## CBI Vs Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w3-23-008)

**Record:** t2w3-23-008
**Title:** CBI Vs Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of V.K. Maheshwari, Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI Vs Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 20 September 2010
**Incident date:** 2000-06-02 (2000)
**Place:** North Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police (Investigating Officer, PS Narela Industrial Area)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI on each count (concurrent; benefit of s.428 CrPC; order on sentence 22.09.2010)

In CC No.73/04 (RC DA1-2000-A-0028), Special Judge V.K. Maheshwari, Tis Hazari, Delhi convicted Delhi Police Sub-Inspector on 20.09.2010 for demanding Rs.5,000 (scaled to Rs.2,500-3,000) to release a seized bus in FIR 61/2000, PS Narela Industrial Area; the CBI trapped him accepting Rs.2,000 on 02.06.2000. On 22.09.2010 the court sentenced him to four years RI with Rs.10,000 fine on each of s.7 and s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) PC Act 1988, sentences concurrent.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/147541058/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-23-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-23-008)

## State v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others (t2w2-10-080)

**Record:** t2w2-10-080
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 25 November 2010
**Incident date:** 2003-04-02 (2003)
**Place:** Delhi (district not stated), Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Traffic Unit, Delhi Police; Constable, Traffic Unit, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Quantum not stated in CAT order (convicted 25.11.2010; \[name withheld\]'s sentence suspended pending appeal)

The Special Judge, Tis Hazari convicted Delhi Traffic Police Head Constable and Constable in ACB FIR 16/03 for demanding and accepting bribe from driver \[name withheld\] - who complained they harassed him while plying truck HR-38-G 6924 on the Delhi-Bahadurgarh route via Ring Road and Rohtak Road - catching both red-handed in a trap on 02.04.2003 for not challaning the vehicle, with Rs 3,000 recovered from \[name withheld\], holding them guilty on 25.11.2010 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, as recorded in the CAT's 24.05.2012 order (OA 1084/2010). \[name withheld\] filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court which is sub judice with sentence suspended; both had been suspended since the trap and faced a revived departmental enquiry from 27.01.2010. (Distinct from undertrial \[name withheld\] in t2w2-10-037.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158501312/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-080](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-080)

## CBI v. Madhya Pradesh Police Inspector (CBI Inspector on deputation from Madhya Pradesh Police; posted Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Jabalpur) (t2w3-23-001)

**Record:** t2w3-23-001
**Title:** CBI v. Madhya Pradesh Police Inspector (CBI Inspector on deputation from Madhya Pradesh Police; posted Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Jabalpur)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Rohini Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Madhya Pradesh Police Inspector (CBI Inspector on deputation from Madhya Pradesh Police; posted Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Jabalpur)
**Conviction:** 24 December 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector (CBI Inspector on deputation from Madhya Pradesh Police; posted Anti-Corruption Branch, CBI, Jabalpur), Madhya Pradesh Police (on deputation to CBI)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 6 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release dated 24.12.2010 states that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Rohini Courts, New Delhi sentenced Shri \[name withheld\], then CBI Inspector on deputation from Madhya Pradesh Police, to six years RI with Rs.50,000 fine in a bribery case. CBI had trapped him accepting Rs.25,000 from a complainant in a case he was investigating at ACB CBI Jabalpur; charge sheet was filed 15.12.2004 and charges framed 29.10.2005.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20110806145356id_/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2010-12-24-2.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-23-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-23-001)

## State v. Sukhbir Singh; CC No.23/07; FIR No.73/06, PS ACB (Geeta Colony bribery, Sept 2006) (t2w2-10-047)

**Record:** t2w2-10-047
**Title:** State v. Sukhbir Singh; CC No.23/07; FIR No.73/06, PS ACB (Geeta Colony bribery, Sept 2006)
**Court:** Court of Ms. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Special Judge, Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Sukhbir Singh; CC No.23/07; FIR No.73/06, PS ACB (Geeta Colony bribery, Sept 2006)
**Conviction:** 27 January 2011
**Incident date:** 2006-09-08 (2006)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sukhbir Singh (Head Constable)
**Victims:** East Delhi man
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (not in conviction copy dated 27.01.2011; not traced)

Special Judge (ACB) Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Delhi convicted Head Constable Sukhbir Singh for demanding Rs 10,000 (settled at Rs 5,000) from \[name withheld\] on 08.09.2006 at PS Geeta Colony for not registering an FIR on Lata Chauhan's complaint, taking Rs 1,000 with Rs 4,000 promised the next day, as proved through the ACB trap led by Raid Officer ACP. This is distinct from the CBI DB-Gupta-Road case against a namesake (t2-15-009). Conviction was pronounced on 27.01.2011 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149279182/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-047](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-047)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-033)

**Record:** t2w2-10-033
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Sh. Talwant Singh, Special Judge-01 CBI (ACB-01 ND), New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 31 March 2011
**Incident date:** 2004-04-19 (2004)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Nizamuddin, Delhi Police
**Victims:** South East Delhi resident
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs 5,000 fine u/s 7; 2 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine u/s 13(2); concurrent; s.428 benefit (sentence order 15.04.2011)

Special Judge-01 CBI Talwant Singh, New Delhi convicted SI of PS Nizamuddin for demanding Rs 10,000 from a South East Delhi resident to accept his anticipatory-bail bonds in FIR 175/2004, threatening to get the bail cancelled, as proved through the CBI trap following the complaint of 20.04.2004. The court convicted him on 31.03.2011. He was sentenced on 15.04.2011 to one year RI under section 7 and two years RI under section 13 with Rs 15,000 total fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53871959/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-033)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Additional SHO (t2w2-10-014)

**Record:** t2w2-10-014
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Additional SHO
**Court:** Court of Shri P.S. Teji, District Judge (East)-cum-Special Judge (CBI), Karkardooma, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Additional SHO
**Conviction:** 20 May 2011
**Incident date:** 2004-02-24 (2004)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Additional SHO, PS Khajoori Khas, North East District, Delhi Police
**Victims:** North East Delhi man
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine u/s 7; 4 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine u/s 13 (sentence order 24.05.2011)

District Judge (East)-cum-Special Judge (CBI) P.S. Teji, Karkardooma convicted Additional SHO of PS Khajoori Khas for demanding a Rs 15,000 bribe from complainant \[name withheld\] to register a case against \[name withheld\], holding the CBI trap and recovery proved. The co-accused private person Pawan Jain was not convicted with him. \[name withheld\] was sentenced on 24.05.2011 to four years RI with Rs 10,000 fine on each count.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23462533/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-014)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable (t2w2-10-034)

**Record:** t2w2-10-034
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable
**Court:** Court of Shri P.S. Teji, District Judge (East)-cum-Special Judge (CBI), Karkardooma, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 31 May 2011
**Incident date:** 2003-09-06 (2003)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, PS Mandawali, Delhi Police
**Victims:** East Delhi resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine u/s 7; 3 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine u/s 13(2); concurrent (sentence order 02.06.2011)

District Judge (East)-cum-Special Judge (CBI) P.S. Teji, Karkardooma convicted Head Constable of PS Mandawali for demanding Rs 3,000 bribe, holding the CBI trap following the complaint of 06.09.2003 proved. The court observed he betrayed public faith and tarnished the image of the police. He was sentenced on 02.06.2011 to three years RI with Rs 5,000 fine on each count.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138077821/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-034)

## State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-11-012)

**Record:** t2w4-11-012
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Ms. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Special Judge, ACB, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 16 July 2011
**Incident date:** 2005-02-11 (2005)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.120B; PC Act 1988 s.7 r/w IPC s.120B; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) punishable under s.13(2) r/w IPC s.120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, Police Station Model Town (North West Delhi; IO of FIR No.738/04)
**Victims:** North West Delhi man
**Sentence:** Convicted 16-07-2011; quantum in separate sentence order not traced

Per the trial judgment, SI of Delhi Police (PS Model Town), with HC and private conduit Shammi Kumar, was convicted on 16-07-2011 by the Special Judge, ACB, Delhi under s.120B IPC, s.7/120B and s.13(1)(d)/13(2)/120B of the PC Act for conspiring to extract Rs 15,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] (accused in FIR No.738/04 under s.307/34 IPC, PS Model Town, on anticipatory bail since 23-12-2004) for furnishing and accepting his bail bond, caught in the ACB trap of 11-02-2005 at Hanuman Mandir, Vijay Nagar accepting Rs 5,000 through Shammi Kumar (FIR No.10/05). The judgment ends at conviction with sentence to be heard separately; quantum untraced and no appeal traced. (Different person-case from Traffic HC in t2w2-10-080.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88782739/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-012)

## State v. Delhi Police Head Constable (t2w4-11-013)

**Record:** t2w4-11-013
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable
**Court:** Court of Ms. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Special Judge, ACB, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 16 July 2011
**Incident date:** 2005-02-11 (2005)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.120B; PC Act 1988 s.7 r/w IPC s.120B; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) punishable under s.13(2) r/w IPC s.120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Delhi Police, Police Station Model Town (North West Delhi; beat constable)
**Victims:** North West Delhi man
**Sentence:** Convicted 16-07-2011; quantum in separate sentence order not traced

Per the trial judgment, HC of Delhi Police (beat constable, PS Model Town), with SI and private conduit Shammi Kumar, was convicted on 16-07-2011 by the Special Judge, ACB, Delhi under s.120B IPC, s.7/120B and s.13(1)(d)/13(2)/120B of the PC Act for conspiring to extract Rs 15,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] for accepting his bail bond in FIR No.738/04 (threatening false implication on non-payment), caught in the ACB trap of 11-02-2005 at Hanuman Mandir, Vijay Nagar accepting Rs 5,000 (FIR No.10/05). The judgment ends at conviction with sentence to be heard separately; quantum untraced and no appeal traced.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88782739/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-013)

## State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-11-010)

**Record:** t2w4-11-010
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Ms. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Special Judge, ACB, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 19 August 2011
**Incident date:** 2003-11-05 (2003)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) punishable under s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, Police Station New Ashok Nagar (East Delhi)
**Victims:** East Delhi man
**Sentence:** Convicted 19-08-2011; quantum in separate sentence order not traced

Per the trial judgment, SI of Delhi Police (PS New Ashok Nagar) was convicted on 19-08-2011 by the Special Judge, ACB, Delhi under s.7 and s.13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act for demanding Rs 20,000 (reduced to Rs 15,000, Rs 5,000 as first instalment) from complainant, an East Delhi man, to act on his sister \[name withheld\]'s flat-trespass complaint at Mayur Vihar Phase-III, in ACB traps following complaints dated 05-11-2003 and 17-12-2003 (FIR No.72/2003), with the tainted notes recovered from his pant pocket and washes confirmed by FSL. The judgment ends at conviction with sentence to be heard separately; quantum untraced and no appeal traced. (Different person-case from the Punjab Jagtar Singhs in t2-17-017 and t2w2-09-001.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29061970/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-010)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-059)

**Record:** t2w2-10-059
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Sh. Padam Kant Saxena, Special Judge-IV (PC Act) CBI, Tis Hazari, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 17 October 2011
**Incident date:** 1999-10-28 (1999)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Crime Branch, R.K. Puram, Delhi Police; Head Constable, Crime Branch, R.K. Puram, Delhi Police; Constable/Driver, Crime Branch, R.K. Puram, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (not in 67-page conviction copy dated 17.10.2011; not traced)

Special Judge-IV (PC Act) CBI Padam Kant Saxena, Tis Hazari convicted SI, HC and Constable/\[name withheld\] of the Crime Branch, R.K. Puram for conspiring to demand Rs 7,500 illegal gratification from Jarnail Singh, with A-3 receiving Rs 5,000 from him on 28.10.1999 at A-1 and A-2's direction after threats to the complainant and his son \[name withheld\], holding all three guilty on 17.10.2011 under section 120B IPC and sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. The 67-page conviction judgment does not include the sentence order.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156065981/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-059](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-059)

## State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-11-011)

**Record:** t2w4-11-011
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Ms. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Special Judge, ACB, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 19 October 2011
**Incident date:** 2005-03-16 (2005)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) punishable under s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, Police Station Badarpur (South East Delhi)
**Victims:** South East Delhi man
**Sentence:** Convicted 19-10-2011; quantum in separate sentence order not traced

Per the trial judgment, SI of Delhi Police (PS Badarpur) was convicted on 19-10-2011 by the Special Judge, ACB, Delhi under s.7 and s.13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act for demanding Rs 20,000 on 15-03-2005 from complainant \[name withheld\] to register his kidnapping case (a s.156(3) CrPC complaint was also pending before the MM, Patiala House) and accepting Rs 5,000 outside the PS Badarpur gate on 16-03-2005, caught red-handed in the ACB trap (FIR No.14/05) with the tainted notes' numbers tallying the pre-raid report. The judgment ends at conviction with sentence to be heard separately; quantum untraced and no appeal traced.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107756162/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-011)

## CBI vs Delhi Police Inspector and others (t2-15-003)

**Record:** t2-15-003
**Title:** CBI vs Delhi Police Inspector and others
**Court:** Court of Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-2, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Delhi Police Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 22 December 2011
**Incident date:** 2006-01-21 (2006)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Delhi Police, District Investigation Unit, Nehru Place, New Delhi; Head Constable, Delhi Police, District Investigation Unit, Nehru Place, New Delhi
**Victims:** South East Delhi man
**Sentence:** Chatterjee: 4 yr RI+Rs 30,000 (120B), 3.5 yr RI+Rs 30,000 (s.7), 4 yr RI+Rs 40,000 (s.13), concurrent. \[name withheld\]: 3.5 yr RI+Rs 15,000 (120B), 3 yr RI+Rs 15,000 (s.7), 3.5 yr RI+Rs 20,000 (s.13), concurrent. Section 428 benefit from 21.01.2006.

Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-2 convicted Delhi Police Inspector and Head Constable of the DIU Nehru Place for criminal conspiracy and demanding Rs 1.5 lakh bribe from complainant \[name withheld\], accepting Rs 15,000 as first installment in a CBI trap on 21 January 2006, to help him in cross-cases arising from FIRs 704-705/2005 at PS Kotla Mubarakpur. The court held both guilty under section 120B IPC and sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Both were sentenced to concurrent rigorous imprisonment up to four years with fines totalling Rs 1 lakh and Rs 50,000 respectively.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152326565/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-15-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-15-003)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Inspector (t2w4-11-014)

**Record:** t2w4-11-014
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Inspector
**Court:** Court of Sh. Manoj Jain, Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Inspector
**Conviction:** 29 February 2012
**Incident date:** 2001-01-11 (2001)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.7; IPC 120B r/w PC Act ss.13(1)(d)/13(2); IPC 120B r/w PC Act s.7; IPC 120B r/w PC Act s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Delhi Police, District Crime Cell (South District); IO of FIR No.803/99, PS Defence Colony
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years SI (13(1)(d)/13(2)) + 1 year SI (s.7) + 2 years SI (120B r/w 13(1)(d)/13(2)) + 1 year SI (120B r/w s.7) + 1 year SI (120B r/w s.12), concurrent, with s.428 CrPC set-off

Per the trial judgment, Inspector of Delhi Police (District Crime Cell, South; IO of the Telgi-linked counterfeit-stamps case FIR No.803/99, PS Defence Colony) was convicted on 29-02-2012 by the CBI Special Judge, Saket for entering a criminal conspiracy under which co-accused \[name withheld\] (owner of M/s Blue Star Services, in police custody in FIR No.878/00, PS Kalkaji) was taken to Corporation Bank, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road on 11-01-2001 and made to withdraw Rs 8,55,000 received as illegal gratification, and was sentenced on 05-03-2012 to 2 years SI (principal count) with Rs 10,000 fine on each of five counts (concurrent). Co-accused private person \[name withheld\] was convicted alongside; the three subordinate policemen (HC, Constables and \[name withheld\]) were acquitted. No appeal traced.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31783645/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-014)

## CBI vs Delhi Police Head Constable and others (t2-15-009)

**Record:** t2-15-009
**Title:** CBI vs Delhi Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Court of Sh. Pradeep Chaddah, Special Judge CBI-01, Central District, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Delhi Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 20 April 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated (2007)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B r/w PC Act 1988 s.7 and s.13; PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Delhi Police, PS DB Gupta Road; Head Constable, Delhi Police, PS DB Gupta Road
**Victims:** Central Delhi resident
**Sentence:** QUANTUM UNRELIABLE IN AVAILABLE COPY: guilt finding (120B r/w 7 & 13, s.7, s.13 PC Act) is explicit, but the appended sentence-order pages name different convicts (DDA officials) — apparent order/upload compilation error; needs eCourts certified-copy verification

Special Judge (CBI) Central convicted Delhi Police Head Constables and \[name withheld\] of PS DB Gupta Road for demanding and accepting Rs 20,000 bribe from complainant \[name withheld\] for not implicating him in a theft case, caught in a CBI trap in January 2007. The court found both guilty of conspiracy and substantive offences under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sentence quantum could not be reliably extracted because the sentence-order pages in the available copy name unrelated convicts.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132116800/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23445583/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23445583/ (duplicate copy, same anomaly))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-15-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-15-009)

## State v. Delhi Police Head Constable (t2w3-33-005)

**Record:** t2w3-33-005
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable
**Court:** Court of Ms. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Branch), Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 27 April 2012
**Incident date:** 2006-08-29 (2006)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2); IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, PS Chandni Chowk, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Held guilty and convicted 27.04.2012 by Special Judge (ACB) Delhi; sentence order passed separately and quantum not retrieved from the conviction judgment

Per the judgment of 27.04.2012 (CC 41/2007), Head Constable \[name withheld\] and Constable of PS Chandni Chowk demanded Rs 5,000 on 29.08.2006 from a hardware-shop owner to not arrest him on a sales-tax recovery warrant, and were caught in an ACB trap on 04.09.2006. Special Judge (ACB) Sangita Dhingra Sehgal held both guilty under ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) PC Act r/w s.120-B IPC, posting sentence hearing separately.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96386338/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-33-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-33-005)

## State v. Delhi Police Constable and others (t2w3-33-006)

**Record:** t2w3-33-006
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Constable and others
**Court:** Court of Ms. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Branch), Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Constable and others
**Conviction:** 27 April 2012
**Incident date:** 2006-08-29 (2006)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2); IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, PS Chandni Chowk, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Held guilty and convicted 27.04.2012 by Special Judge (ACB) Delhi; sentence order passed separately and quantum not retrieved from the conviction judgment (a different \[name withheld\] in t2w2-10-080 belongs to FIR 16/03 traffic-unit case)

Per the judgment of 27.04.2012 (CC 41/2007), Constable of PS Chandni Chowk, with HC, demanded Rs 5,000 on 29.08.2006 from a hardware-shop owner to not arrest him on a sales-tax recovery warrant, and was caught in an ACB trap on 04.09.2006. Special Judge (ACB) Sangita Dhingra Sehgal held both guilty under ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) PC Act r/w s.120-B IPC, posting sentence hearing separately.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96386338/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-33-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-33-006)

## State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (promoted from Constable, 1970 batch) (t2w2-10-072)

**Record:** t2w2-10-072
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (promoted from Constable, 1970 batch)
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (promoted from Constable, 1970 batch)
**Conviction:** 30 April 2012
**Incident date:** 2008-05-02 (2008)
**Place:** North Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (promoted from Constable, 1970 batch), Delhi Police (posted North District at offence time; DCP North respondent)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2.5 years RI + Rs 7,500 fine on each count (sentence order 03.05.2012; suspended 23.05.2012 pending appeal)

The Special Judge, Tis Hazari convicted Delhi Police Sub-Inspector in FIR 112/2008 of PS Civil Lines - lodged 02.05.2008 on Constable's complaint that \[name withheld\] along with \[name withheld\] demanded and accepted Rs 1,200 bribe - holding him guilty on 30.04.2012 and sentencing him on 03.05.2012 to two-and-a-half years RI with Rs 7,500 fine on each count, as recorded in the CAT's 17.09.2018 order (OA-928/2017); he had been suspended at the time and retired mid-trial on 31.12.2010. He filed criminal appeal No.609/2012 before the Delhi High Court, which suspended the sentence on 23.05.2012; the appeal was still pending when the CAT decided the OA. The conviction, if any, of co-accused \[name withheld\] in this case is not stated in the order.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38193990/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-072](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-072)

## State v. Delhi Police Head Constable (Clerical) and others (t2w2-10-050)

**Record:** t2w2-10-050
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable (Clerical) and others
**Court:** Court of Sh. Narinder Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge (Central), Delhi (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable (Clerical) and others
**Conviction:** 9 May 2012
**Incident date:** 2008-05-31 (2008)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (Clerical), Delhi Police
**Victims:** Central Delhi woman
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment + Rs 20,000 fine (4 months RI in default); set-off for detention undergone (sentence order 09.05.2012)

Additional Sessions Judge (Central) Narinder Kumar convicted Clerical Head Constable of Delhi Police for murdering W/ASI \[name withheld\] on 31.05.2008 after visiting her government accommodation at Type-A Police \[name withheld\], Ahata Kidara, Sadar Bazar and strangulating her, holding the circumstantial evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt. He was convicted on 09.05.2012 under section 302 IPC. The same day he was sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs 20,000 fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160560171/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-050](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-050)

## State (CBI) v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-018)

**Record:** t2w2-10-018
**Title:** State (CBI) v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Sh. Dharmesh Sharma, Special Judge-03 CBI, New Delhi District, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** State (CBI) v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 5 June 2012
**Incident date:** 2004-06-19 (2004)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Post Garhi, PS Lajpat Nagar, Delhi Police
**Victims:** South East Delhi man; South East Delhi man
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 25,000 fine u/s 7; 4 years RI + Rs 25,000 fine u/s 13(2); concurrent; s.428 benefit (sentence order 07.06.2012)

Special Judge-03 CBI Dharmesh Sharma, New Delhi convicted Sub-Inspector of PP Garhi, PS Lajpat Nagar for demanding and accepting Rs 5,000 bribe after unlawfully detaining complainant \[name withheld\] and his father for three days in June 2004 and torturing them. The court refused leniency, noting he abused police power and threatened the complainant during trial. He was sentenced on 07.06.2012 to concurrent four-year RI terms with Rs 50,000 total fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49715854/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-018)

## CBI vs Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP, Public Grievances Cell; formerly SHO Chittaranjan Park) (t2-15-012)

**Record:** t2-15-012
**Title:** CBI vs Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP, Public Grievances Cell; formerly SHO Chittaranjan Park)
**Court:** Court of Sh. Pradeep Chaddah, Special Judge CBI-01, Central District, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Delhi Police Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP, Public Grievances Cell; formerly SHO Chittaranjan Park)
**Conviction:** 12 July 2012
**Incident date:** 2004-11-05 (2004)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP, Public Grievances Cell; formerly SHO Chittaranjan Park), Delhi Police
**Victims:** Central Delhi man
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs 25,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 7; 1 year RI + Rs 25,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 13; concurrent; undertrial-period benefit

Special Judge (CBI) Central convicted Delhi Police ACP for demanding his share of Diwali/Dussehra cracker-licence bribe collections from his subordinate SI and trapping him while accepting Rs 5,000. The court held the ACP guilty under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, noting the irony of a Public Grievances Cell officer extorting his own subordinate. He was sentenced to concurrent one year rigorous imprisonment with Rs 50,000 total fine.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45001227/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110186890/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110186890/ (duplicate copy))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-15-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-15-012)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others (t2-16-008)

**Record:** t2-16-008
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge-FTC (Central) Ms. Kaveri Baweja, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 9 August 2012
**Incident date:** 1986-08-22 (1986)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 323; IPC 342; IPC 304 Part II; IPC 34; IPC 218; IPC 109
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Patel Nagar, Delhi Police; Sub-Inspector, PS Patel Nagar, Delhi Police
**Victims:** West Delhi man; West Delhi man
**Sentence:** 10 years rigorous imprisonment each (trial court); co-accused \[name withheld\] died during trial (abated); convictions of \[name withheld\] and a doctor (u/s 218 IPC, false report) set aside by HC

ASJ-FTC (Central) Tis Hazari on 9 August 2012 convicted Patel Nagar Sub-Inspectors and Inder Rana for the custodial torture-murder of a West Delhi man: on the night of 22 August 1986 they picked up complainant \[name withheld\] and his uncle a West Delhi man, beat both with saria, danda and roller at the police station (after an alleged illegal demand of Rs 10,000), and a West Delhi man died the next morning, with the death first passed off as drug-related. Both were sentenced to 10 years RI under sections 323/342/304/34 IPC. In December 2015 Justice Indermeet Kaur of the Delhi High Court upheld the two SIs' conviction and 10-year sentences (relying on PW-9's un-cross-examined testimony), while acquitting Constable and the convicted doctor.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155626869/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/delhi-hc-upholds-conviction-of-police-officers-in-a-19-year-old-custodial-death-case/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-16-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-16-008)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others (t2w2-10-007)

**Record:** t2w2-10-007
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Saket Court, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 9 August 2012
**Incident date:** 2006-01-01 (2006)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B r/w PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, PS Narcotics, Kamla Market, Delhi Police; Constable, PS Narcotics, Kamla Market, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Both 3.5 years RI; Pawar Rs 40,000 fine, Yogendra Rs 25,000 fine

The Special Judge CBI Cases, Saket convicted ASI and Constable of the Narcotics police station, Kamla Market, for pressuring the complainant for a Rs 1 lakh bribe in 2006, holding both guilty of conspiracy and substantive PC Act offences. Both accused had been arrested during the investigation. Each was sentenced to three-and-a-half years RI with fines of Rs 40,000 and Rs 25,000 respectively.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/Mzg0NA==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-007)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable (IO) (t2w2-10-022)

**Record:** t2w2-10-022
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable (IO)
**Court:** Court of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-01, Saket, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable (IO)
**Conviction:** 9 August 2012
**Incident date:** 2006-09-20 (2006)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (IO), PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi Police
**Victims:** North West Delhi resident
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (not in conviction copy dated 09.08.2012; not traced)

Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-01 \[name withheld\], Saket convicted Head Constable, IO of FIR 684/2006 at PS Shalimar Bagh, for demanding Rs 2,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] on 20.09.2006 to strengthen his assault case, threatening to favour the opposite party if unpaid. The CBI verified the complaint and laid a trap proving demand and receipt. Conviction was pronounced on 09.08.2012; the sentence order is not in the available copy.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48293456/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-022)

## State (CBI) v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-044)

**Record:** t2w2-10-044
**Title:** State (CBI) v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Sh. Dharmesh Sharma, Special Judge-03 CBI, New Delhi District, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** State (CBI) v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 21 August 2012
**Incident date:** 2009-02-24 (2009)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, PS Bindapur, Delhi Police
**Victims:** South West Delhi man
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 25,000 fine u/s 7; 4 years RI + Rs 25,000 fine u/s 13; concurrent; 6 months RI in default per count (sentence order 22.08.2012)

Special Judge-03 CBI Dharmesh Sharma, New Delhi convicted ASI of PS Bindapur for demanding illegal gratification on 21/23.02.2009 from \[name withheld\] to inquire into his complaint of 01.08.2008 and accepting Rs 10,000 at PS Bindapur on 24.02.2009, holding the CBI trap proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt on 21.08.2012. The court declined leniency. He was sentenced on 22.08.2012 to concurrent four-year RI terms with Rs 50,000 total fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110489496/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-044](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-044)

## State (CBI) v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-042)

**Record:** t2w2-10-042
**Title:** State (CBI) v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Ms. Swarana Kanta Sharma, Special Judge (CBI-05), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** State (CBI) v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 31 August 2012
**Incident date:** 2007-11-25 (2007)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, PS Badarpur, Delhi Police
**Victims:** South East Delhi man
**Sentence:** 6 months RI + Rs 10,000 fine u/s 7; 1 year RI + Rs 10,000 fine u/s 13; concurrent; s.428 benefit; fine deposited (sentence order 03.09.2012)

Special Judge (CBI-05) Swarana Kanta Sharma, Patiala House convicted ASI of PS Badarpur for demanding Rs 15,000 (scaled to Rs 9,000) from a South East Delhi man after a vehicle-collision sulehnama on 25.11.2007, threatening false implication under sections 307/365 IPC, as proved through the recorded CBI trap near Sibal Cinema, Badarpur. The court convicted him on 31.08.2012 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. He was sentenced on 03.09.2012 to six months RI under section 7 and one year RI under section 13 with Rs 20,000 total fine; his counsel moved a section 389 application stating an appeal would be preferred.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159380070/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-042](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-042)

## CBI vs Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2-15-007)

**Record:** t2-15-007
**Title:** CBI vs Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Sh. P.S. Teji, District Judge & ASJ I/C (East) / Special Judge (CBI), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 6 September 2012
**Incident date:** 2007-11-27 (2007)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, PS Krishna Nagar (IO in FIR 562/2007)
**Victims:** East Delhi man
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs 25,000 fine (in default 6 months SI) u/s 7 PC Act; section 428 benefit

Special Judge (CBI) Karkardooma convicted Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector, IO of FIR 562/2007 at PS Krishna Nagar, for demanding and accepting Rs 5,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] for accepting his bail bonds, proved through demand at both initial and crucial stages and a CBI trap. The court convicted him under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act while acquitting both accused of conspiracy and acquitting co-accused advocate Virender Panwar. \[name withheld\] was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with Rs 25,000 fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154115771/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-15-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-15-007)

## CBI v. New Delhi Police Constable (t2w3-24-004)

**Record:** t2w3-24-004
**Title:** CBI v. New Delhi Police Constable
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. New Delhi Police Constable
**Conviction:** 27 February 2013
**Incident date:** 2005-01-18 (2005)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307; Arms Act 1959 s.27
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Central Industrial Security Force (embassy security duty, Kathmandu, Nepal)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Life Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi convicted CISF Constable of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment with Rs.30,000 total fine, after a seven-year trial in judicial custody. The release states Rana, posted on security duty at the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu, opened fire on colleagues in the barracks in the wee hours of 18.01.2005 after an altercation the previous night, killing two CISF personnel and injuring three; CBI chargesheeted him in the CMM Delhi court on 08.04.2005 with Central Government sanction u/s 188 CrPC since the crime occurred abroad. (Note: the cbi.gov.in archive index dates this PR 27/02/2014, but the PR body is dated 27.02.2013; conviction year taken as 2013.)

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzY1OQ==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-004)

## CBI v. New Delhi Police Deputy Inspector General (DIG) (t2w3-24-006)

**Record:** t2w3-24-006
**Title:** CBI v. New Delhi Police Deputy Inspector General (DIG)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. New Delhi Police Deputy Inspector General (DIG)
**Conviction:** 26 March 2013
**Incident date:** 1991-06-16 (1991)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment under s.7 and 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment under s.13(2) (concurrent implied; PR does not \[name withheld\] consecutive)

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi convicted then-DIG of CBI \[name withheld\] in a bribery case and sentenced him to one year RI with Rs.50,000 fine each under s.7 and s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The release states Sharma, supervisory officer of a FERA case, demanded Rs.10 lakh for not implicating two brothers in a TADA case and was caught red-handed accepting the bribe at his R.K. Puram official residence on 16.06.1991; CBI chargesheeted him on 09.09.1992.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzYzNQ==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-006)

## State v. Delhi Police Head Constable (Women, No.8720/PCR) (t2w2-10-056)

**Record:** t2w2-10-056
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable (Women, No.8720/PCR)
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable (Women, No.8720/PCR)
**Conviction:** 10 May 2013
**Incident date:** 2008-06-18 (2008)
**Place:** Delhi (district not stated), Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (Women, No.8720/PCR), PCR, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine (3 months in default)

The Special Judge convicted Delhi Police Woman Head Constable (No.8720/PCR) on 10.05.2013 under section 120B IPC read with sections 7/13 of the PC Act with two years RI and Rs 5,000 fine, as recorded in the CAT's 29.11.2019 order (OA-1552/2015). She had been arrested on 18.06.2008 by the Anti-Corruption Branch in FIR 17/08 along with two other officers, all suspended, with a joint departmental enquiry truthing the charges in 2010. She was dismissed from service on 25.09.2013; her criminal appeal status is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197320827/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-056](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-056)

## CBI v. New Delhi Police Superintendent of Police (SP) (t2w3-24-008)

**Record:** t2w3-24-008
**Title:** CBI v. New Delhi Police Superintendent of Police (SP)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Saket Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. New Delhi Police Superintendent of Police (SP)
**Conviction:** 16 July 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated (1999)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B r/w PC Act 1988 s.8 & s.9
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police (SP), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years Simple Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Saket Courts, New Delhi convicted then-SP of CBI \[name withheld\] in a bribery case and sentenced him to four years simple imprisonment with Rs.5.20 lakh total fine. The release states \[name withheld\] and a then-DySP (who died during trial) acted as middlemen between suspects in CBI investigations and the investigating and law officers, conspiring to subvert cases by influencing officers in favour of accused persons for huge illegal gratification; CBI registered the case on 12.08.1999 and chargesheeted both u/s 120-B r/w ss.8 and 9 of the PC Act.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzU0OQ==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-008)

## State v. Delhi Police Head Constable (t2w2-10-058)

**Record:** t2w2-10-058
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable
**Court:** Court of Sh. Narottam Kaushal, Special Judge (PC Act)-05 (ACB)(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 19 August 2013
**Incident date:** 2008-06-02 (2008)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, PS Paschim Vihar, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (not in 17-page conviction copy dated 19.08.2013; not traced)

Special Judge (PC Act)-05 Narottam Kaushal, Tis Hazari convicted Head Constable of PS Paschim Vihar for demanding and accepting Rs 1,000 bribe from \[name withheld\] for non-execution of NBWs issued against him in a section 138 NI Act case, when \[name withheld\] visited his residence for warrant execution. The court held demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted him on 19.08.2013 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30220121/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-058](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-058)

## State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others (t2w4-11-016)

**Record:** t2w4-11-016
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Court of Sh. B.R. Kedia, Special Judge-07 (Central) (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD), Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 11 September 2013
**Incident date:** 2010-03-03 (2010)
**Place:** Shahdara, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, Police Station Seemapuri (East Delhi)
**Victims:** Shahdara resident
**Sentence:** Convicted 11-09-2013; quantum in separate sentence order not traced

Per the trial judgment, ASI \[name withheld\] of Delhi Police (PS Seemapuri) was convicted on 11-09-2013 by the ACB Special Judge, Delhi under s.7 and s.13(2)/13(1)(d) of the PC Act for demanding Rs 2,000 on 01-03-2010 from complainant \[name withheld\] (earlier acquitted in FIR No.329/02, PS Delhi Cantt) with the threat of arrest in a false case, caught in the ACB trap of 03-03-2010 at the police booth near Deer Park, Dilshad Garden (FIR No.09/2010) with the tainted Rs 2,000 recovered from his right hand and the s.20 presumption unrebutted. The judgment ends at conviction with sentence to be heard separately; quantum untraced and no appeal traced.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153281040/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-016)

## State vs Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2-15-004)

**Record:** t2-15-004
**Title:** State vs Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Sh. Narottam Kaushal, Special Judge (PC Act)-05 (ACB)(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State vs Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 19 September 2013
**Incident date:** 2008-11-01 (2008)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi
**Victims:** New Delhi man
**Sentence:** 2.5 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine (in default 6 months SI) u/s 7 PC Act

Special Judge (PC Act) Tis Hazari convicted Delhi Police Sub-Inspector of PS Barakhamba Road for demanding Rs 3,000 per month from parking contractor \[name withheld\] to permit unauthorised parking in Vakil Lane, forcibly collecting Rs 3,000 in the first week of November 2008. The court held the demand and acceptance proved and convicted him under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to two-and-a-half years rigorous imprisonment with Rs 10,000 fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77214109/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-15-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-15-004)

## CBI v. Indian Police IPS (then Resident Commissioner, Govt of Tripura, New Delhi; later IG, Gujarat) (t2w2-10-049)

**Record:** t2w2-10-049
**Title:** CBI v. Indian Police IPS (then Resident Commissioner, Govt of Tripura, New Delhi; later IG, Gujarat)
**Court:** Court of Sh. J.P.S. Malik, Special Judge CBI-03 (PC Act), Tis Hazari, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Indian Police IPS (then Resident Commissioner, Govt of Tripura, New Delhi; later IG, Gujarat)
**Conviction:** 19 September 2013
**Incident date:** 1996-01-01 (1996)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B r/w IPC 420/468 and PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d); IPC 468; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** IPS (then Resident Commissioner, Govt of Tripura, New Delhi; later IG, Gujarat), Indian Police Service (Tripura cadre; posted New Delhi at offence time)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine on each of 3 counts; substantive sentences in the three complaint cases concurrent (sentence order 01.10.2013)

Special Judge CBI-03 J.P.S. Malik, Tis Hazari convicted IPS officer, then Tripura Resident Commissioner in New Delhi, in three complaint cases arising from RC2(S)/96 for conspiracy, cheating, forgery and criminal misconduct in the fraudulent nomination of candidates to MBBS seats, alongside former Union Minister Rasheed Masood. Conviction was pronounced on 19.09.2013. On 01.10.2013 he was sentenced to four years RI with Rs 10,000 fine on each count, the three cases' sentences running concurrently.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114899280/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23293471/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8161202/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-049](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-049)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Constable (Driver; PCR West Zone) and others (t2w2-10-087)

**Record:** t2w2-10-087
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Constable (Driver; PCR West Zone) and others
**Court:** Court of Sh. L.K. Gaur, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-09, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Constable (Driver; PCR West Zone) and others
**Conviction:** 19 April 2014
**Incident date:** 2004-01-01 (2004)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (Driver; PCR West Zone), Delhi Police (R/o Tikri Kalan)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3yr RI+Rs 25,000 (s.7); 3yr RI+Rs 25,000 (s.13); concurrent (sentence order 12.05.2014)

Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-09 L.K. Gaur, Tis Hazari convicted Delhi Police Constable (Driver) \[name withheld\] of Tikri Kalan in CC 93/2011 (RC 48(A)/04) for accepting illegal gratification from bootleggers Bengali and Goonga selling liquor illegally - caught on video camera by complainant \[name withheld\], who filmed several Delhi Police and Excise personnel taking money and moved the High Court in March 2004, with CFSL voice-spectrography matching the constable's specimen voice to the recording of him announcing his name while collecting small-denomination notes - holding him guilty (pronounced 19.04.2014) under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. He was sentenced on 12.05.2014 to three years RI with Rs 25,000 fine on each count, concurrent. (Distinct from Ct. \[name withheld\] of t2w2-10-004 and SI of t2w2-10-030.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116331677/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-087](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-087)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable (No.9149/DAP) and others (t2w2-10-088)

**Record:** t2w2-10-088
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable (No.9149/DAP) and others
**Court:** Court of Sh. L.K. Gaur, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-09, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable (No.9149/DAP) and others
**Conviction:** 3 May 2014
**Incident date:** 2003-11-14 (2003)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (No.9149/DAP), Excise Department, GNCT Delhi (on deputation from Delhi Police; intelligence gathering)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3yr RI+Rs 25,000 (s.7); 3yr RI+Rs 25,000 (s.13); concurrent (sentence order 12.05.2014)

Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-09 L.K. Gaur, Tis Hazari convicted Delhi Police Head Constable (No.9149/DAP), on deputation with the Excise Department gathering intelligence, in CC 89/2011 (RC 48(A)/04) for accepting a Rs 100 bribe from Uttam Nagar-area bootleggers - filmed on 14.11.2003 by complainant \[name withheld\]'s video camera in the same sting that exposed Delhi Police and Excise personnel, with his specimen voice matched to the recording - holding him guilty on 03.05.2014 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act while acquitting him of conspiracy and acquitting co-accused Constable entirely. He was sentenced on 12.05.2014 to three years RI with Rs 25,000 fine on each count, concurrent. The CAT's 23.12.2016 order (OA 4580/2015) records he had gone in appeal to the High Court with no stay of conviction or sentence.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60679588/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197105202/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-088](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-088)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others (t2w2-10-089)

**Record:** t2w2-10-089
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Court of Sh. L.K. Gaur, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-09, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 30 May 2014
**Incident date:** 2003-01-01 (2003)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d); IPC 120B r/w PC Act ss.7, 13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi Police; Head Constable, PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3yr RI each count (ss.7, 13, 120B), concurrent; overall fine Rs 40,000 (\[name withheld\]) and Rs 60,000 (\[name withheld\]) (sentence order 07.06.2014)

Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-09 L.K. Gaur, Tis Hazari convicted Delhi Police Head Constables (\[name withheld\]) of Kassar, Jhajjar and \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\]) of Kandela, Jind, both working at PS Uttam Nagar, in CC 91/2011 (RC 48(A)/04) for demanding and accepting bribe money from bootlegger Beena Sansi selling liquor bottles from her house - \[name withheld\] filmed sitting outside her house taking the money and handing it to \[name withheld\] in complainant \[name withheld\]'s video sting, with CFSL voice-spectrography matching both specimen voices - holding them guilty (pronounced 30.05.2014) under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act with criminal conspiracy. Both were sentenced on 07.06.2014 to three years RI on each count, concurrent, with overall fines of Rs 40,000 and Rs 60,000 respectively. (Distinct from \[name withheld\] of t2w2-10-048.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181359619/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-089](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-089)

## State (CBI) v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-11-015)

**Record:** t2w4-11-015
**Title:** State (CBI) v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Ms. Swarana Kanta Sharma, Special Judge, CBI-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** State (CBI) v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 27 June 2014
**Incident date:** 2004-11-08 (2004)
**Place:** South Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, Police Station Sangam Vihar, New Delhi (South Delhi)
**Victims:** South Delhi man
**Sentence:** 6 months RI (s.7) + 1 year RI (s.13(2)), concurrent, with s.428 CrPC set-off; sentence suspended till 15-09-2014 to enable appeal

Per the trial judgment, SI of Delhi Police (PS Sangam Vihar) was convicted on 27-06-2014 by the CBI Special Judge, Patiala House under s.7 and s.13(2)/13(1)(d) of the PC Act for demanding Rs 1.25 lakh (in five instalments, through social worker Kalpana Jha, with demands tape-recorded on 06/07-11-2004) from a South Delhi man to close a complaint falsely alleging he had murdered his brother (who had died a natural death), accepting Rs 20,000 at Jha's residence on 08-11-2004 (RC 45A-2004-CBI-ACB-New Delhi), and was sentenced on 15-07-2014 to 6 months RI (s.7) and 1 year RI (s.13(2)) with Rs 20,000 fine on each count. Sentence was suspended till 15-09-2014 for appeal; filing not traced, appeal status unknown. (Indian Kanoon titles the document 15 July 2012; the judgment/sentence inside are dated 2014.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45945531/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-015)

## State v. Sunil Kumar; Corruption Case No.12/2013; FIR No.11/2012, PS ACB (t2w2-10-021)

**Record:** t2w2-10-021
**Title:** State v. Sunil Kumar; Corruption Case No.12/2013; FIR No.11/2012, PS ACB
**Court:** Court of Sh. Narottam Kaushal, Special Judge (PC Act)-05 (ACB)(Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Sunil Kumar; Corruption Case No.12/2013; FIR No.11/2012, PS ACB
**Conviction:** 10 July 2014
**Incident date:** 2012-04-19 (2012)
**Place:** South Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sunil Kumar (Constable (beat constable))
**Victims:** South Delhi resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine u/s 7; 3 years RI + Rs 15,000 fine u/s 13(2); concurrent; s.428 benefit (sentence order 15.07.2014)

Special Judge (PC Act)-05 Narottam Kaushal, Tis Hazari convicted Delhi Police Constable Sunil Kumar, beat constable of Aya Nagar, for demanding Rs 20,000 from a South Delhi resident to permit his house construction, holding the ACB trap of 19.04.2012 proved. The court found he abused his position as a public servant. He was sentenced on 15.07.2014 to concurrent three-year RI terms with Rs 25,000 total fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128382808/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-021)

## CBI v. Ajit Singh; CC No.05/2014; RC DST/2013/A/0004 (CBI ACB Malkhana cash misappropriation, 1997) (t2w2-10-045)

**Record:** t2w2-10-045
**Title:** CBI v. Ajit Singh; CC No.05/2014; RC DST/2013/A/0004 (CBI ACB Malkhana cash misappropriation, 1997)
**Court:** Court of Sh. Gurvinder Pal Singh, Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)-6, Patiala House Court, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Ajit Singh; CC No.05/2014; RC DST/2013/A/0004 (CBI ACB Malkhana cash misappropriation, 1997)
**Conviction:** 26 July 2014
**Incident date:** 1997-01-01 (1997)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 409; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(c) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ajit Singh (Assistant Sub-Inspector (then; Inspector at time of trial))
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 6 years RI + Rs 4,00,000 fine u/s 409 IPC; 4 years RI + Rs 4,00,000 fine under PC Act (12 months SI in default per count) (sentence order 28.07.2014)

Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)-6 Gurvinder Pal Singh, Patiala House convicted Ajit Singh, then ASI and Malkhana in-charge of CBI ACB Delhi, for criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct over case-property cash (including Rs 6,20,000 of the Rs 33,38,000 seized from ITO R.C. Bakshi on 27.06.1997) handed to him on 28.07.1997, holding the offences committed in his capacity as public servant proved. He was convicted on 26.07.2014. On 28.07.2014 he was sentenced to six years RI with Rs 4 lakh fine under section 409 IPC and four years RI with Rs 4 lakh fine under the PC Act.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62512948/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-045](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-045)

## State v. Delhi Police SHO (Inspector) and others (t2w2-10-048)

**Record:** t2w2-10-048
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police SHO (Inspector) and others
**Court:** Court of Sh. Narottam Kaushal, Special Judge (PC Act)-05 (ACB)(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police SHO (Inspector) and others
**Conviction:** 16 August 2014
**Incident date:** 2008-12-19 (2008)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.7 r/w IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) r/w IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO (Inspector), PS Bhajanpura, Delhi Police; Sub-Inspector (Division Officer), PS Bhajanpura, Delhi Police
**Victims:** North East Delhi man
**Sentence:** Each: 2yr RI+Rs 10,000 (120B); 2yr RI+Rs 10,000 (s.7); 3yr RI+Rs 15,000 (s.13); \[name withheld\] additionally 2yr RI+Rs 10,000 (s.7, Rs 12,000 Dream Beverages demand); concurrent; s.428 (sentence order 21.08.2014)

Special Judge (PC Act)-05 Narottam Kaushal, Tis Hazari convicted SHO and Division Officer SI \[name withheld\] of PS Bhajanpura for conspiracy and bribery in permitting unauthorised restaurants/cafes to run in exchange for protection money from a North East Delhi man, with \[name withheld\] additionally demanding Rs 12,000 from the man posing as Dream Beverages Restaurant owner. Both were held guilty on 16.08.2014 under section 120B IPC and sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. On 21.08.2014 each was sentenced to up to three years RI with fines, all concurrent.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36981709/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-048](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-048)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Constable and others (t2w2-10-019)

**Record:** t2w2-10-019
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Constable and others
**Court:** Court of Shri P.S. Teji, District & Sessions Judge (East) / Special Judge (CBI), Karkardooma, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Constable and others
**Conviction:** 16 September 2014
**Incident date:** 2010-07-13 (2010)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B r/w PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, PS Geeta Colony, Delhi Police
**Victims:** East Delhi man
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\]: 4 years RI + Rs 25,000 fine on each of 3 counts, concurrent; s.428 benefit. Co-convict \[name withheld\]: 4 years RI + Rs 25,000 fine (sentence order 19.09.2014)

District & Sessions Judge (East)-cum-Special Judge (CBI) P.S. Teji, Karkardooma convicted Delhi Police Constable of PS Geeta Colony and \[name withheld\] for hatching a criminal conspiracy to demand and accept Rs 5,000 bribe from the complainant, holding \[name withheld\] guilty of conspiracy and substantive sections 7 and 13 PC Act offences on 16.09.2014. Both were sentenced on 19.09.2014 to four years RI with Rs 25,000 fine per count.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137488239/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-019)

## CBI vs Delhi Police Head Constable (t2-15-008)

**Record:** t2-15-008
**Title:** CBI vs Delhi Police Head Constable
**Court:** Court of Sh. P.S. Teji, District & Sessions Judge (East) / Special Judge (CBI), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Delhi Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 21 November 2014
**Incident date:** 2010-07-13 (2010)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Delhi Police, PS Geeta Colony
**Victims:** East Delhi man
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 25,000 fine (default 6 months SI) u/s 7; 4 years RI + Rs 25,000 fine (default 6 months SI) u/s 13; concurrent; section 428 benefit

Special Judge (CBI) Karkardooma convicted Delhi Police Head Constable of PS Geeta Colony for demanding Rs 20,000 from auto-driver \[name withheld\], threatening to declare him a bad character and foist cases on him, and accepting Rs 15,000 as first installment in a CBI trap. The court held him guilty under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to concurrent four years rigorous imprisonment with Rs 50,000 total fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102291901/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-15-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-15-008)

## State vs Delhi Police Head Constable (No. 327/NW) (t2-15-010)

**Record:** t2-15-010
**Title:** State vs Delhi Police Head Constable (No. 327/NW)
**Court:** Court of Sh. Dig Vinay Singh, Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge NDPS (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Delhi Police Head Constable (No. 327/NW)
**Conviction:** 26 February 2015
**Incident date:** 1999-08-15 (1999)
**Place:** North Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II r/w IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (No. 327/NW), Delhi Police, PS Alipur; Head Constable (No. 643/NW), Delhi Police, PS Alipur; Constable (No. 811/NW), Delhi Police, PS Alipur; Constable (No. 1729/NW), Delhi Police, PS Alipur
**Victims:** North Delhi man
**Sentence:** Separate order on sentence not in available copy (conviction judgment only); needs eCourts verification

ASJ \[name withheld\] convicted four Delhi Police personnel of PS Alipur — Head Constables and \[name withheld\] and Constables and \[name withheld\] — for the custodial death of a North Delhi man, whom they kept in illegal detention on 15 August 1999 and beat and tortured until he died. The court held knowledge of likely death imputable to all four and convicted them under section 304 Part II read with section 34 IPC. (A fifth accused, \[name withheld\], died during trial and proceedings against him abated.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79489291/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-15-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-15-010)

## CBI vs Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2-15-005)

**Record:** t2-15-005
**Title:** CBI vs Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** District & Sessions Judge (East) / Special Judge (CBI), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (Shri Talwant Singh) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 7 October 2015
**Incident date:** 2012-05-26 (2012)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B r/w PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, PS Mandawali (Investigating Officer in FIR 88/2012)
**Victims:** East Delhi resident
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\]: 1 yr RI+Rs 10,000 (120B r/w s.13), 3 yr RI+Rs 25,000 (s.7), 3 yr RI+Rs 25,000 (s.13), concurrent. Co-convict Rahul (civilian son): 1 yr RI+Rs 10,000. Section 428 benefit given.

Special Judge (CBI) Karkardooma convicted Delhi Policewoman Sub-Inspector, IO of rape case FIR 88/2012 at PS Mandawali, for demanding Rs 1,00,000 (scaled to Rs 40,000 in verification) from complainant \[name withheld\] to save his grandson in that case, with her son \[name withheld\] collecting the tainted bribe in the CBI trap. Both were held guilty of conspiracy; \[name withheld\] was further convicted under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. She was sentenced to concurrent rigorous imprisonment up to three years with Rs 60,000 total fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61240466/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-15-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-15-005)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-003)

**Record:** t2w2-10-003
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 4 December 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** North Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 (bribery; exact sections unstated in release)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Timarpur, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\] 3 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine; co-accused \[name withheld\] (private) 2 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine

The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Tis Hazari convicted Sub-Inspector of PS Timarpur for demanding and accepting Rs 80,000 through co-accused \[name withheld\] to restore the complainant's house possession in a civil dispute with his daughter-in-law. The CBI chargesheeted both accused after investigation. \[name withheld\] was sentenced to three years RI and the private middleman to two years RI.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MTk0Nw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-003)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Inspector/SHO and others (t2w2-10-001)

**Record:** t2w2-10-001
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Inspector/SHO and others
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Inspector/SHO and others
**Conviction:** 25 February 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(e); IPC 109 (wife, abetment)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector/SHO, PS Kalyanpuri, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 5,00,000 fine (\[name withheld\]); wife \[name withheld\] 2 years RI + Rs 1,50,000 fine; forfeiture of DA ordered

The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Delhi convicted Inspector/SHO \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] of PS Kalyanpuri for possessing disproportionate assets of Rs 31.55 lakh and sentenced him to four years RI with Rs 5 lakh fine, also convicting his wife \[name withheld\] as abettor. The CBI registered the case on 10.01.2005 and examined 43 witnesses at trial. The trial court ordered forfeiture of the disproportionate assets.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MTg4MQ==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-001)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable (t2w2-10-002)

**Record:** t2w2-10-002
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 25 May 2016
**Incident date:** 2004-04-21 (2004)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Crime Against Women Cell, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine; Rs 3,000 compensation to complainant

The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Tis Hazari convicted Head Constable of the Crime Against Women Cell for demanding and accepting Rs 3,000 to register a dowry-harassment complaint, catching him red-handed in a CBI trap at PS Pitampura. The CBI registered the case on 21.04.2004 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. He was sentenced to four years RI with Rs 5,000 fine plus Rs 3,000 compensation to the complainant.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MTgyMA==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-002)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable (t2w3-33-001)

**Record:** t2w3-33-001
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable
**Court:** Court of Sh. Brijesh Kumar Garg, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 1 June 2016
**Incident date:** 2013-09-02 (2013)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Delhi Police (posting not stated in order on sentence)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI (s.7) + 3 years RI (s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)); all sentences concurrent; set-off u/s 428 CrPC for custody 02.09.2013–11.11.2013 (sentence order 01.06.2016)

Per the order on sentence dated 01.06.2016 of the Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-01, Tis Hazari, Head Constable of Delhi Police was convicted on 31.05.2016 for demanding and accepting Rs 10,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] for releasing his Santro car on superdari despite court orders. The court held he had damaged public trust reposed in police and deserved no leniency. No appeal is recorded on the judgment page.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105871173/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-33-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-33-001)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Inspector (t2w3-25-001)

**Record:** t2w3-25-001
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, Karkardooma Courts, East District, Delhi (Sh. Jitendra Kumar Mishra) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Inspector
**Conviction:** 18 July 2016
**Incident date:** 1999-01-01 (1999)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B r/w 119, 193, 211, 218, 221; PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); IPC 193; IPC 211
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Delhi Police (Investigating Officer of FIR No. 878/00); Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police (dismissed from service 11.02.2000 per Ex PW2/A); Head Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** C1 \[name withheld\]: 6 years SI + Rs.20 lakh fine; C2 \[name withheld\]: 6 years RI + Rs.20 lakh fine; C4 \[name withheld\], C5 \[name withheld\], C6 \[name withheld\]: 3.5 years RI each + Rs.2 lakh fine each; all sentences concurrent; Section 428 CrPC benefit given (order on sentence 23.07.2016)

The Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, Karkardooma Courts, East Delhi, by judgment dated 18.07.2016 convicted five Delhi Police personnel — Inspector, Sub-Inspector, Head Constable and Constables and \[name withheld\] — for conspiring with fake-stamp kingpin Abdul Karim Telgi (A3, already convicted 12.05.2010) during 1999-2001, planting fake stamps of about Rs.13 crore on Jai Kishan Bengali at Hotel Gulf Mumbai and falsely implicating innocent persons to shield Telgi. The court held their acts were not under colour of duty. On 23.07.2016 it sentenced \[name withheld\] to 6 years SI with Rs.20 lakh fine, \[name withheld\] to 6 years RI with Rs.20 lakh fine, and the other three to 3.5 years RI each with Rs.2 lakh fine each, all sentences concurrent.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110367996/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-25-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-25-001)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Deputy Commissioner of Police (1993-batch IPS, AGMU cadre; retired) (t2w2-10-006)

**Record:** t2w2-10-006
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Deputy Commissioner of Police (1993-batch IPS, AGMU cadre; retired)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Deputy Commissioner of Police (1993-batch IPS, AGMU cadre; retired)
**Conviction:** 7 October 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Commissioner of Police (1993-batch IPS, AGMU cadre; retired), 10th Battalion DAP, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs 5,00,000 fine; confiscation of properties to be initiated

The Special Judge CBI Cases, Patiala House convicted retired IPS officer, then DCP 10th Battalion DAP, for amassing disproportionate assets of about Rs 10 lakh and sentenced him to two years RI with Rs 5 lakh fine. The CBI registered the case on 05.07.2001 under the PC Act and examined 45 witnesses relying on 150 documents. The court was to initiate proceedings for confiscation of the convict's properties.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/Mjc5Mg==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-006)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Additional SHO (t2w2-10-005)

**Record:** t2w2-10-005
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Additional SHO
**Court:** Special Judge CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Additional SHO
**Conviction:** 23 November 2016
**Incident date:** 2014-11-22 (2014)
**Place:** South West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Additional SHO, PS Chhawla, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 1,000 fine

The Special Judge CBI Cases, Patiala House convicted Additional SHO of PS Chhawla for demanding Rs 5 lakh to drop the complainant's name from an FIR he was investigating, catching him red-handed accepting Rs 1 lakh in a CBI trap. The CBI registered the case on 22.11.2014 and filed chargesheet in the designated court. Yadav was sentenced to four years RI with Rs 1,000 fine.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/Mjc2Mg==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-005)

## CBI vs Delhi Police Inspector (Retd.; then SHO) (t2w4-24-004)

**Record:** t2w4-24-004
**Title:** CBI vs Delhi Police Inspector (Retd.; then SHO)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Delhi Police Inspector (Retd.; then SHO)
**Conviction:** 17 March 2017
**Incident date:** 1997-12-09 (1997)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector (Retd.; then SHO), Police Station Hauz Qazi, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Central Delhi resident
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on 17 March 2017 sentenced Inspector (Retd.) \[name withheld\], then SHO of Police Station Hauz Qazi, to five years Rigorous Imprisonment with a Rs 35,000 fine for the custodial death of a Central Delhi resident, whom police personnel picked up on 09.12.1997 on his instructions and mercilessly beat, causing death in custody on 10.12.1997. CBI registered the case on 17.04.1998 at the GNCT Delhi request and chargesheeted Yadav and the then ASI (who died during trial, charges abated) on 10.12.1999 after examining 24 prosecution witnesses; the trial court found Yadav guilty and convicted him.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjY1NA==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-24-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-24-004)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (then SI) and others (t2-13-032)

**Record:** t2-13-032
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (then SI) and others
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (then SI) and others
**Conviction:** 7 February 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated (2015)
**Place:** North Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (then SI), PS Narela, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Simple imprisonment 4 years + fine Rs 20,000

The Special Judge, CBI Tis Hazari sentenced Delhi Police Sub-Inspector \[name withheld\] to 4 years' simple imprisonment for threatening the complainant and demanding Rs 15,000 for not implicating him and his family in a Narela case he was investigating. The CBI registered the case in July 2015, trapped him, and chargesheeted him in December 2015. Trap in 2015 per case chronology.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjQzMA==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-032)

## State vs Sikkim Police Constable (t2w3-37-004)

**Record:** t2w3-37-004
**Title:** State vs Sikkim Police Constable
**Court:** Sessions Court, Delhi (Darya Ganj PS case; Crl.A. 272/2017 before Delhi High Court) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Sikkim Police Constable
**Conviction:** 24 August 2015
**Incident date:** 2007-03-11 (2007)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part-I; IPC 201; IPC 182
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, D-Company, IRB, 1st Battalion, Sikkim Police
**Victims:** Central Delhi resident; Central Delhi resident; Central Delhi resident; Central Delhi resident; Central Delhi resident
**Sentence:** Trial (order 23.12.2015): life imprisonment (302) + 2 years RI (201) + 6 months SI (182). On appeal (Delhi HC 24.03.2018): conviction altered to 304 Part-I IPC, sentence 10 years RI with fine.

Per the Delhi High Court (judgment 24.03.2018 in Crl.A. 272/2017), IRB Constable shot dead five colleagues at the Dena Bank chest, Golcha Cinema, Delhi on 11.03.2007. The trial court convicted him on 24.08.2015 under Sections 302/201/182 IPC and awarded life imprisonment (sentence order 23.12.2015). The High Court held colleagues had attempted to sodomise him but that he reacted excessively; it altered the conviction to Section 304 Part-I IPC and reduced the sentence to 10 years RI with Rs.50,000 fine.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75604236/); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/irb-sikkim-police-constable-guns-down-5-colleagues-hc-reduces-sentence-to-10-yrs-jail-111320.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-37-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-37-004)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (then SI) (t2-13-031)

**Record:** t2-13-031
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (then SI)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (then SI)
**Conviction:** 20 April 2018
**Incident date:** 2016-07-20 (2016)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (then SI), PS Nihal Vihar, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Simple imprisonment 3 years + fine Rs 50,000

The Special Judge, CBI Tis Hazari sentenced Delhi Police Sub-Inspector to 3 years' simple imprisonment for accepting Rs 70,000 to favour the complainant in a criminal case against his brother. The CBI trapped him red-handed on 20.07.2016 and chargesheeted him that September under the PC Act.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjM4NQ==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-031)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (then SI) (t2-13-030)

**Record:** t2-13-030
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (then SI)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini Court, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (then SI)
**Conviction:** 24 August 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated (2016)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (then SI), PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 5 years + fine Rs 4,50,000

The Special Judge, CBI \[name withheld\] sentenced Delhi Police Sub-Inspector to 5 years' RI for demanding and accepting Rs 2.5 lakh to help the complainant and family in a case he was investigating. The CBI registered the case in January 2016, trapped him red-handed, and chargesheeted him in July 2016. Trap in 2016 per case chronology.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjMxMQ==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-030)

## State v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others (t2w2-10-011)

**Record:** t2w2-10-011
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Court of Sh. Sanjay Khanagwal, Special Judge (PC Act)-02 (ACB), Central, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 25 April 2019
**Incident date:** 2008-08-09 (2008)
**Place:** North Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Delhi Police (PS Narela area)
**Victims:** North Delhi man
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (hearing fixed after 25.04.2019; quantum not in conviction copy, not traced)

Special Judge (PC Act)-02 Sanjay Khanagwal, Rouse Avenue convicted Head Constable under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act for demanding Rs 5,000 (scaled to Rs 3,000) from complainant \[name withheld\] to dispose of a complaint after detaining his relatives, accepting Rs 2,000 plus Rs 500 with the balance caught in a trap with recorded conversation. Co-accused Constable was acquitted, and \[name withheld\] was acquitted of conspiracy and extortion charges. The court ordered conviction on 25.04.2019 with sentence arguments on the next date.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184499029/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-011)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer) and others (t2w2-10-085)

**Record:** t2w2-10-085
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer) and others
**Court:** Court of Sh. Pulastya Pramachala, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer) and others
**Conviction:** 21 May 2019
**Incident date:** 2018-04-26 (2018)
**Place:** North East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer), PS Khajuri Khas, North East District, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (not in 114-page conviction judgment dated 21.05.2019)

Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13 Pulastya Pramachala, Rouse Avenue convicted SI of PS Khajuri Khas for demanding Rs 4 lakh from complainant \[name withheld\] to save his son \[name withheld\] - in custody in FIR 100/18 and newly booked in FIR 205/18 (ss.376/420/34 IPC and POCSO) which \[name withheld\] was investigating - and accepting Rs 1 lakh, with the demand verified at Karkardooma Courts on 26.04.2018 and a CBI trap under Insp. Raman Kumar Shukla laid the same night, holding him guilty on 21.05.2019 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act for abusing his position as investigating officer. The conviction judgment does not include the sentence order. (Kanoon mislabels the title as U.P. vs Anil Singh; the matter is CBI vs \[name withheld\].)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130517859/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-085](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-085)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-025)

**Record:** t2w2-10-025
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Ms. Anju Bajaj Chandna, Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)-02, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 31 May 2019
**Incident date:** 2017-11-06 (2017)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B r/w PC Act 1988 s.7 & s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Crime Branch, Daryaganj, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Central Delhi resident
**Sentence:** ASI: 4 years RI (conspiracy/13) + 3 years RI u/s 7; intern Anshul: 4 years RI (per press reports of sentence hearing; fine quanta not stated)

Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)-02 Anju Bajaj Chandna, Rouse Avenue convicted ASI of the Crime Branch and law intern Anshul for demanding Rs 2 lakh (settled at Rs 70,000) from a Central Delhi resident to facilitate her brother's bail, with the intern caught red-handed accepting the money on the ASI's behalf in a CBI trap. The court held acceptance complete the moment Anshul took the money for \[name withheld\]. Both were convicted on 31.05.2019 and sentenced to four years RI (ASI also three years under section 7).

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10001052/); [lawstreet.co](https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/delhi-court-convicts-law-intern-for-accepting-bribe); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/bribe-for-bail-delhi-court-convicts-law-intern-who-accepted-bribe-on-behalf-of-asi-146021)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-025)

## State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-043)

**Record:** t2w2-10-043
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Ms. Kiran Bansal, Special Judge (PC Act Cases) ACB-01, Central District, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 28 September 2019
**Incident date:** 2013-05-31 (2013)
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2); IPC 388
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police (Hari Nagar area; attended suicide-attempt PCR call of 31.05.2013)
**Victims:** West Delhi man; West Delhi man
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (not in conviction copy dated 28.09.2019; not traced)

Special Judge (PC Act) ACB-01 Kiran Bansal, Rouse Avenue convicted ASI for demanding Rs 50,000 from a West Delhi man @ a West Delhi man and his father after attending a suicide-attempt PCR call on 31.05.2013, threatening abetment-to-suicide prosecution, and accepting Rs 20,000 as caught on a spy-camera recording made by complainant \[name withheld\]. A West Delhi man with matching voice samples. The FIR was registered after the matter appeared in newspapers on 22.06.2013 and the CMM (West) ordered registration. Conviction was pronounced on 28.09.2019 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act plus section 388 IPC.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18218517/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-043](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-043)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-046)

**Record:** t2w2-10-046
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Ms. Santosh Snehi Mann, Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI-08), Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 18 October 2019
**Incident date:** 2014-11-27 (2014)
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Chanakya Puri, Delhi Police
**Victims:** New Delhi man
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (hearing fixed 21.10.2019; quantum not in conviction copy, not traced)

Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI-08) Santosh Snehi Mann, Rouse Avenue convicted SI of PS Chanakya Puri for demanding Rs 4 lakh from a New Delhi man, an accused in FIR 82/14 (American Embassy fake-documents case) which \[name withheld\] was investigating, to exonerate him, meeting him in Chandigarh and confirming the demand in verified recorded conversation after the 27.11.2014 CBI complaint. He was held guilty under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act on 18.10.2019. Sentence arguments were fixed for 21.10.2019.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114476824/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-046](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-046)

## State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-035)

**Record:** t2w2-10-035
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Ms. Kiran Bansal, Special Judge (PC Act) ACB-01, Central District, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 16 November 2019
**Incident date:** 2014-02-02 (2014)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, PS Shakarpur, Delhi Police
**Victims:** East Delhi resident; East Delhi resident
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (not in conviction copy dated 16.11.2019; not traced)

Special Judge (PC Act) ACB-01 Kiran Bansal, Rouse Avenue convicted ASI of PS Shakarpur, IO of FIR 22/14, for demanding Rs 10,000 bribe to get bail for the accused, holding the Vigilance trap and voice-sample evidence proved. The conviction was pronounced on 16.11.2019. The sentence order is not in the available copy.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174467173/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-035)

## CBI v. Rajesh Kumar; CBI Case No.56/2019 (complaint 13.06.2017) (t2w2-10-013)

**Record:** t2w2-10-013
**Title:** CBI v. Rajesh Kumar; CBI Case No.56/2019 (complaint 13.06.2017)
**Court:** Court of Sh. Arun Bhardwaj, Special Judge (CBI-05)(PC Act), Rouse Avenue, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Rajesh Kumar; CBI Case No.56/2019 (complaint 13.06.2017)
**Conviction:** 23 December 2020
**Incident date:** 2017-06-14 (2017)
**Place:** South Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Rajesh Kumar (Constable (PIS No.28093220; beat constable))
**Victims:** South Delhi man
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (not in conviction copy, not traced)

Special Judge Arun Bhardwaj (CBI-05), Rouse Avenue convicted Constable Rajesh Kumar, beat constable of PS Neb Sarai, under section 7 of the PC Act for demanding Rs 50,000 (scaled to Rs 35,000) from utensil-shop owner \[name withheld\] of Sangam Vihar to let him run his shop for a year. The court held the 14.06.2017 demand proved through verified recorded calls even though the 15.06.2017 transaction failed when the complainant spotted the shadow witness. Conviction was pronounced on 23.12.2020.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55932500/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-013)

## State v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others (t2w2-10-017)

**Record:** t2w2-10-017
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Court of Ms. Kiran Bansal, Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-01, RADC, New Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 31 March 2021
**Incident date:** 2011-02-17 (2011)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.7 r/w IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) r/w IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, PS Jahangirpuri, Delhi Police; SHO (Inspector), PS Jahangirpuri, Delhi Police
**Victims:** North West Delhi man
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (not in conviction copy; not traced in press)

Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-01 Kiran Bansal, Rouse Avenue convicted Head Constable \[name withheld\] and SHO of PS Jahangirpuri for criminal conspiracy and bribery in a matter arising from a rape-case investigation, holding both guilty under section 120B IPC and sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act on 31.03.2021. The prosecution case was that the IO demanded bribes (Rs 25,000) from complainant \[name withheld\]'s side with the SHO's complicity. The 165-page conviction judgment does not include the sentence order.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117707092/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105249287/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105249287/ (related 2016 revision order in same case))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-017)

## State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-008)

**Record:** t2w2-10-008
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Ms. Kiran Bansal, Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-01, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 27 September 2021
**Incident date:** 2017-08-26 (2017)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Special Branch, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years imprisonment + fine (fine quantum not stated in available reports)

Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-01 Kiran Bansal, Rouse Avenue convicted ASI of the Special Branch along with two civilians for abetting ASJ Chandra Shekhar to accept Rs 50,000 delivered in an envelope with a peon-recruitment interview letter, to favour candidate Mukul Kumar. All three were held guilty under section 12 PC Act read with section 120B IPC on 27.09.2021 and given three years imprisonment. On 26.09.2025 Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld \[name withheld\]'s conviction under section 12 PC Act (acquitting him of conspiracy) but acquitted both civilian co-accused.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54807653/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/delhi-court-convicts-delhi-police-asi-bribing-judge-secure-job-182636); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/nbk26092025crla3152021143115-632674.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-008)

## State v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others (t2w2-10-070)

**Record:** t2w2-10-070
**Title:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Court of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra, Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB-01), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Delhi Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 9 November 2022
**Incident date:** 2015-07-03 (2015)
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 342; IPC 384; IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.7 r/w IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, PS Shakarpur, Delhi Police; Head Constable, PS Shakarpur, Delhi Police
**Victims:** East Delhi man; East Delhi resident; East Delhi man; East Delhi resident
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (not in 73-page conviction judgment dated 09.11.2022; not traced in press)

Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB-01) Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra, Rouse Avenue convicted Head Constables and \[name withheld\] of PS Shakarpur for wrongfully detaining an East Delhi resident, an East Delhi resident, an East Delhi man and friends - picked up near a Bisleri-water shop where they sought chanda for a Hanuman Mandir bhandara - at a PG hostel in Gali No.3, Lalita Park on 03.07.2015 and demanding Rs 50,000 for their release, snatching Rs 8,000 from the complainant's hand and demanding Rs 12,000 more, till complainant \[name withheld\] complained to ACP DIU (East) who mounted an evening raid. Both were held guilty on 09.11.2022 of wrongful confinement, extortion and conspiracy with sections 7 and 13 PC Act offences; co-accused \[name withheld\] @ \[name withheld\] was acquitted. The conviction judgment does not include the sentence order.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65408403/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-070](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-070)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-10-068)

**Record:** t2w2-10-068
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-21, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 8 June 2023
**Incident date:** 2018-12-28 (2018)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Lodhi Colony, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (not in conviction judgment dated 08.06.2023; not traced in press)

Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-21 Namrita Aggarwal, Rouse Avenue convicted SI of PS Lodhi Colony for demanding Rs 2 lakh from complainant \[name withheld\] for removing her and her husband \[name withheld\]'s names from a quarrel complaint of 25.12.2018 which he was investigating, with the demand verified over recorded calls on 28/31.12.2018 and 02.01.2019 and the CBI arresting him at PS Lodhi Colony on 02.01.2019 while accepting Rs 80,000 as first instalment. He was held guilty on 08.06.2023 under section 7 of the PC Act as amended in 2018, the court opening its judgment with the maxim that with great power comes great responsibility for public servants. The conviction judgment does not include the sentence order.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32224635/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/with-great-power-comes-great-responsibility-delhi-court-invokes-spider-man-convicts-delhi-cop-bribery); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/cbi-arrests-delhi-police-officer-for-taking-bribe-569836.html/amp)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-068](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-068)

## CBI v. Delhi Police SHO (Inspector) and others (t2w2-10-015)

**Record:** t2w2-10-015
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police SHO (Inspector) and others
**Court:** Court of Sh. Gaurav Rao, Special Judge CBI (PC Act)-01, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police SHO (Inspector) and others
**Conviction:** 13 March 2024
**Incident date:** 2020-06-16 (2020)
**Place:** North West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.7 r/w IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO (Inspector), PS Vijay Vihar, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police (PS Vijay Vihar)
**Victims:** North West Delhi man
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (hearing fixed after 13.03.2024; quantum not in conviction copy, not traced)

Special Judge CBI (PC Act)-01 Gaurav Rao, Rouse Avenue convicted SHO S.\[name withheld\] of PS Vijay Vihar and Constable for demanding Rs 5 lakh from plot owner \[name withheld\] to allow boundary-wall construction, with Yadav caught red-handed accepting Rs 2 lakh at \[name withheld\]'s direction in a verified CBI trap. Both were held guilty of conspiracy and substantive bribery on 13.03.2024. Sentence arguments were fixed for a later date.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103774861/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-015)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others (t2w3-33-008)

**Record:** t2w3-33-008
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Court of Niyay Bindu, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 27 March 2024
**Incident date:** 2019-06-10 (2019)
**Place:** South Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7 (as amended 2018); IPC 120B r/w PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Sangam Vihar, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Held guilty and convicted 27.03.2024 by Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue; sentence order separate and quantum not retrieved from the conviction judgment

Per the 117-page judgment of 27.03.2024 (CC 422/2019), SI of PS Sangam Vihar demanded Rs 15,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] to not arrest his brother in FIR 421/2018, and with ASI conspired to take it; \[name withheld\] accepted the bribe in a CBI trap on 10.06.2019. Special Judge Niyay Bindu held both guilty under s.7 PC Act (\[name withheld\] substantive) and s.120-B IPC r/w s.7 PC Act.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100699025/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-33-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-33-008)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others (t2w3-33-009)

**Record:** t2w3-33-009
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Court of Niyay Bindu, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 27 March 2024
**Incident date:** 2019-06-10 (2019)
**Place:** South Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B r/w PC Act 1988 s.7 (as amended 2018)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, PS Tigri (earlier PS Sangam Vihar), Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Held guilty and convicted 27.03.2024 by Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue; sentence order separate and quantum not retrieved from the conviction judgment

Per the judgment of 27.03.2024 (CC 422/2019), ASI (then of PS Tigri, earlier Sangam Vihar) conspired with SI to extract Rs 15,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] to spare his brother's arrest in FIR 421/2018, confirming the Rs 15,000 settlement over the phone during CBI verification. Special Judge Niyay Bindu held both guilty under s.120-B IPC r/w s.7 PC Act.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100699025/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-33-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-33-009)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Constable (t2w2-10-066)

**Record:** t2w2-10-066
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Constable
**Court:** Court of Ms. Niyay Bindu, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Constable
**Conviction:** 24 October 2024
**Incident date:** 2021-01-21 (2021)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7 (as amended 2018)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, PS Sarita Vihar, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (not in 132-page conviction judgment dated 24.10.2024; not traced in ANI/press copies)

Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-13 Nyay Bindu, Rouse Avenue convicted Constable of PS Sarita Vihar for demanding Rs 1 lakh along with a mobile phone and accepting Rs 1 lakh from complainant \[name withheld\]. Naeem - caught in a CBI trap on 21.01.2021 on the premises of PS Sangam Vihar - as reward for not arraigning him in a rape case filed by Phulo Devi, holding he abused his official position. He was held guilty on 24.10.2024 under section 7 of the PC Act as amended in 2018, the court rejecting the defence that a constable lacked authority to influence the case. The conviction judgment does not include the sentence order.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122144466/); [dailyprabhat.com](https://www.dailyprabhat.com/court-convicts-police-constable-for-taking-bribe-for-helping-a-man-in-rape-case/); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/headlines/3146460-delhi-constable-convicted-for-corruption-in-rape-case)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-066](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-066)

## State vs Delhi Traffic Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-12-003)

**Record:** t2w4-12-003
**Title:** State vs Delhi Traffic Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Special Judge Deepali Sharma, New Delhi (PC Act court; complex not stated in reports accessed) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State vs Delhi Traffic Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 4 June 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** North Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act s.7 (charge; per 05-01-2023 charge order); PC Act s.13(1)(d) (charge; per 05-01-2023 charge order)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Traffic Police (booth, Pul Mithai Chowk, Azad Market)
**Victims:** North Delhi resident
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment

Special Judge Deepali Sharma on 4 June 2025 convicted Delhi Traffic Police ASI, posted at the Pul Mithai Chowk booth, for taking a Rs 3,000 bribe from tempo driver \[name withheld\] to avoid impounding his vehicle, and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment with a fine. Charges under PC Act ss.7 and 13(1)(d) had been framed on 5 January 2023 by the court of Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra; the full conviction judgment (\[name withheld\] vs ASI, Delhi District Court, on Indian Kanoon) could not be opened (HTTP 429) so sections as convicted and fine quantum are carried from the charge order and press reports.

**Sources (4):** [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3450727-delhi-traffic-cop-jailed-for-bribery-corruptions-impact-on-society); [ecourtsindia.com](https://ecourtsindia.com/truecopy/DLCT110005472022-orderno-8.pdf); [telegram.me](https://telegram.me/s/indianexpress?before=683024); [thedailyjagran.com](https://www.thedailyjagran.com/india/delhi-traffic-police-asi-gets-fouryear-jail-in-9-year-old-bribe-case-details-10243389)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-12-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-12-003)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Constable (t2w2-10-016)

**Record:** t2w2-10-016
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Constable
**Court:** Court of Sh. Gaurav Rao, Special Judge CBI (PC Act)-01, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Constable
**Conviction:** 19 December 2025
**Incident date:** 2022-05-05 (2022)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Sarai Kale Khan Police Chowki, PS Sunlight Colony, Delhi Police
**Victims:** South East Delhi man
**Sentence:** Separate sentence order (hearing fixed after 19.12.2025; quantum not in conviction copy, not traced)

Special Judge CBI (PC Act)-01 Gaurav Rao, Rouse Avenue convicted Constable of Sarai Kale Khan chowki under section 7 of the PC Act for demanding Rs 5,000 per month (Rs 20,000 for four months) from Welcome Travels shop owner \[name withheld\] for smooth running of his shop, holding demand, acceptance and recovery proved through the verified CBI trap of 05.05.2022. The court rejected sanction and technical defences. Conviction was pronounced on 19.12.2025 with sentence arguments fixed separately.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/74834543/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-10-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-10-016)

## CBI v. Delhi Traffic Police Sub-Inspector (then SI & Zonal Officer) and others (t2-13-004)

**Record:** t2-13-004
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Traffic Police Sub-Inspector (then SI & Zonal Officer) and others
**Court:** CBI Court, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Traffic Police Sub-Inspector (then SI & Zonal Officer) and others
**Conviction:** 23 March 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** West Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (then SI & Zonal Officer), Nangloi Traffic Circle, Delhi Traffic Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 3 years + fine Rs 50,000

The CBI Court, Delhi convicted and sentenced Delhi Traffic Police Sub-Inspector \[name withheld\] to 3 years' RI with Rs 50,000 fine for demanding and accepting Rs 24,000 to allow a complainant's trucks through his zone. The CBI registered the case on 08.02.2022, caught him red-handed in a trap, and filed chargesheet on 26.07.2022. Trap date is unstated beyond the registration date.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NzY0NA==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-004)

## CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others (t2w3-33-010)

**Record:** t2w3-33-010
**Title:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Court of Munish Markan, Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-21, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 16 September 2026
**Incident date:** 2024-02-07 (2024)
**Place:** South East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7 (as amended 2018)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, PS Jamia Nagar, South East District, Delhi Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Stands convicted 16.09.2026 for s.7 PC Act by Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-21, Rouse Avenue; sentence order separate and not yet on record (judgment pronounced 2 days before capture)

Per the 136-page judgment of 16.09.2026 (CBI No.66/2024), SI \[name withheld\] of PS Jamia Nagar, IO of FIR 46/2024, demanded Rs 1.5 lakh to dilute the roles of two women in his chargesheet and accepted Rs 45,000 inside his PS cabin on 07.02.2024 (CBI verification 06-07.02.2024; pink-positive jacket-pocket wash). Special Judge Munish Markan convicted him under s.7 PC Act (2018 amendment).

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30045334/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-33-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-33-010)

## State vs Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector (in charge, Navrangpura Police Station) and others (t2w3-35-008)

**Record:** t2w3-35-008
**Title:** State vs Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector (in charge, Navrangpura Police Station) and others
**Court:** Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State vs Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector (in charge, Navrangpura Police Station) and others
**Conviction:** 9 June 1964
**Incident date:** 1963-02-01 (1963)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d) r/w s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector (in charge, Navrangpura Police Station), Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2.5 years rigorous imprisonment

PSI, in charge of Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, who with his writer constable extracted a bribe from complainant \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] (threatening harassment over a postcard) and was caught in a February 1963 Anti-Corruption trap using anthracene-treated currency notes, was convicted on 09.06.1964 by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad under s.161 IPC and s.5(1)(d)/5(2) of the PC Act 1947 and sentenced to 2.5 years' RI with Rs.1,000 fine. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal on 10.09.1965 confirming conviction and sentence, and the Supreme Court dismissed the further appeal on 19.04.1968 (AIR 1968 SC 1323).

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1007220/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/603762/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-35-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-35-008)

## State vs Ahmedabad Police Writer Constable and others (t2w3-35-009)

**Record:** t2w3-35-009
**Title:** State vs Ahmedabad Police Writer Constable and others
**Court:** Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State vs Ahmedabad Police Writer Constable and others
**Conviction:** 10 September 1965
**Incident date:** 1963-02-01 (1963)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.161 r/w s.165A; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d) r/w s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Writer Constable, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2.5 years rigorous imprisonment

Writer Constable of Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, who fetched the complainant to the police station and received the anthracene-treated trap money on the PSI's direction in the February 1963 Anti-Corruption trap, was convicted alongside his PSI on 09.06.1964 by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad under s.161 r/w s.165A IPC and s.5(1)(d)/5(2) of the PC Act 1947 and sentenced to 2.5 years' RI with Rs.1,000 fine. The Gujarat High Court (10.09.1965) and the Supreme Court (19.04.1968, AIR 1968 SC 1323) both dismissed the appeals and confirmed the conviction and sentence.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1007220/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/603762/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-35-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-35-009)

## State vs Kachchh Police Police Sub-Inspector, Gram Rakshak Dal (GRD) (t2w2-08-029)

**Record:** t2w2-08-029
**Title:** State vs Kachchh Police Police Sub-Inspector, Gram Rakshak Dal (GRD)
**Court:** Assistant Sessions Judge, Kutchh at Bhuj (Sessions Case No.17 of 1989) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Kachchh Police Police Sub-Inspector, Gram Rakshak Dal (GRD)
**Conviction:** 17 January 1994
**Incident date:** 1988-10-24 (1988)
**Place:** Kachchh, Gujarat
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.307; IPC s.333
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Gram Rakshak Dal (GRD), GRD Motor Transport Section, Bhuj, Kutch
**Victims:** Kachchh man
**Sentence:** 8 years RI + Rs.500 fine (s.307); 7 years RI + Rs.500 fine (s.333); 1 month RI in default of each fine

PSI of the Gram Rakshak Dal at Bhuj, head of the GRD Motor Transport unit, was convicted on 17 January 1994 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kutchh at Bhuj in Sessions Case No.17/1989 under IPC ss.307/333 and sentenced to 8 years' RI (s.307) plus 7 years' RI (s.333) with fines, for shooting GRD driver \[name withheld\] in the shoulder with his service revolver on 24 October 1988 after the driver refused to let him drive the jeep; the trial court rejected his private-defence plea as self-inflicted injuries. The Gujarat High Court (D.G. Karia, J., (1997)2GLR1586) dismissed his appeal on 20 September 1996, holding the s.307 conviction justified. Note: GRD is a police auxiliary; the judgment styles him Police Sub-Inspector.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1474922/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/455293/narsing-raysing-rajput-appellant-hash-state-of-gujarat-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-029)

## State of Gujarat vs Mehsana Police Police Sub-Inspector (t2-06-010)

**Record:** t2-06-010
**Title:** State of Gujarat vs Mehsana Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge, Mehsana (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State of Gujarat vs Mehsana Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 29 October 1997
**Incident date:** 1991-06-17 (1991)
**Place:** Mehsana, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Langnaj Police Station, Mehsana; Mahendrabhai Nathabhai Raval (Unarmed Police Constable)
**Victims:** Mehsana man
**Sentence:** A1 (PSI): 2 years RI + Rs 2,500 fine each under s.7 and s.13; A2 (constable): 2 years RI + Rs 2,500 fine under s.12

The Special Judge, Mehsana convicted PSI and unarmed constable Mahendrabhai Raval of Langnaj PS on 29 October 1997 in Special (ACB) Case No. 6 of 1992 for demanding Rs 2,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] to spare his father judicial custody, with anthracene-powder evidence of acceptance. Both received two years' RI with fines. The Gujarat High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1107 of 1997 and confirmed the conviction on 25 August 2011, cancelling bail and ordering surrender.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/912351/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-06-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-06-010)

## State vs Kheda Police Senior Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-08-037)

**Record:** t2w2-08-037
**Title:** State vs Kheda Police Senior Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad (Sessions Case No.172/91) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Kheda Police Senior Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 30 November 1999
**Incident date:** 1988-02-06 (1988)
**Place:** Kheda, Gujarat
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 331
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Police Sub-Inspector, Petlad Rural Police Station, Kheda
**Victims:** Kheda man
**Sentence:** 10 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine (s.304-II; 2 years RI in default); 10 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine (s.331; 1 year RI in default), concurrent

Senior PSI of Petlad Rural Police Station, who took custody of a Kheda man (an ss.352/504/506(2) + prohibition accused) on 24-hour remand at 3:20 pm on 5 February 1988 and in whose custody the victim was found dead with grave ante-mortem injuries at 2:30 am on 6 February 1988, was convicted on 30 November 1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Sessions Case No.172/91 under IPC ss.304-II/331 and sentenced to concurrent 10-year RI terms with fines; four co-accused subordinates were discharged for want of evidence. The Gujarat High Court Division Bench (Anil R. Dave & K.S. Jhaveri, JJ.) dismissed his appeal on 4 April 2007, confirming the conviction, holding the appellant offered not even a whisper of explanation for the custodial death and cancelling bail with 5 weeks to surrender.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161601/); [lawyersclubindia.com](https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/custodial-death-31986.asp)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-037)

## State (ACB) vs Gujarat Police Head Constable (t2w4-15-002)

**Record:** t2w4-15-002
**Title:** State (ACB) vs Gujarat Police Head Constable
**Court:** Additional Special Judge, Vadodara (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) vs Gujarat Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 13 November 2000
**Incident date:** 1993-06-10 (1993)
**Place:** Chhota Udepur, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Sankheda Police Station, Gujarat Police
**Victims:** Chhota Udepur resident
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs 1,000 fine (s.7); 2 years RI + Rs 2,000 fine (s.13); concurrent

Head Constable of Sankheda Police Station, the investigating officer in a complaint by a Chhota Udepur resident, demanded Rs 1,000 and accepted Rs 700 in an ACB trap on 10 June 1993; the Additional Special Judge, Vadodara convicted him on 13 November 2000 in Special Case No.26 of 1993 under ss.7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Gujarat High Court (Z.K. Saiyed J.) dismissed his appeal on 12 May 2011, confirming the conviction and cancelling his bail with direction to surrender.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1584032/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/456579/chandrasinh-ishwarbava-rajput-vs-state-of-gujarat/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-15-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-15-002)

## State of Gujarat vs Botad Police Police Sub-Inspector (t2-06-002)

**Record:** t2-06-002
**Title:** State of Gujarat vs Botad Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State of Gujarat vs Botad Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 30 November 2000
**Incident date:** 1989-10-27 (1989)
**Place:** Botad, Gujarat
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 330; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Savarkundla Town Police Station, Bhavnagar
**Victims:** Botad man, age 22
**Sentence:** 7 years RI (s.304-II) + 3 years RI (s.330); co-accused A2-A7 (police) acquitted at trial

The Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar convicted PSI of Savarkundla Town PS on 30 November 2000 for the custodial death of a 22-year-old theft-inquiry detainee beaten with sticks and fists in October 1989 to extort a confession; the post-mortem recorded 23 external injuries. Six co-accused policemen were acquitted at trial. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal (continued by legal heirs after the appellant's death) and upheld the conviction on 14 August 2025.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/cra11382000gjhc24031306200041314082025-615481.pdf); [amreli.nic.in](https://amreli.nic.in/public-utility/savarkundla-municipality/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/high-court/gujarat-high-court/gujarat-high-court-custodial-death-1989-case-22-year-old-cop-conviction-300986); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/gujarat-high-court-custodial-death-1989-case-22-year-old-cop-conviction-300986)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-06-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-06-002)

## State (ACB) vs Traffic Police Traffic Police Constable (t2w2-08-015)

**Record:** t2w2-08-015
**Title:** State (ACB) vs Traffic Police Traffic Police Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (PC Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad City (Special Case No.30/97) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) vs Traffic Police Traffic Police Constable
**Conviction:** 15 November 2000
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Traffic Police Constable, Traffic Police, Ahmedabad City (Narol point)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year 3 months RI + Rs.500 fine

Traffic Police Constable, caught red-handed at Narol by an ACB raiding party led by PI K.\[name withheld\] after demanding Rs.20 from a truck driver for cabin-passenger entry, was convicted on 15 November 2000 by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad City in Special Case No.30/97 under PC Act ss.7/13(1)(d)/13(2) and sentenced to 1 year 3 months' RI with Rs.500 fine. The Gujarat High Court (B.J. Shethna, J.) admitted his Criminal Appeal No.1080/2000 but on 16 June 2001 dismissed his plea to suspend the conviction (2002(4)GLR3240); the final appeal outcome is not stated. Note: distinct from the \[name withheld\].20 case (t2w2-08-014).

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/920159/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-015)

## State vs Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) (t2w3-35-004)

**Record:** t2w3-35-004
**Title:** State vs Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector (PSI)
**Court:** Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Special Case No.28 of 1986) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State vs Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector (PSI)
**Conviction:** 21 September 1987
**Incident date:** 1985-10-18 (1985)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d) r/w s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad City
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.100 fine at trial; reduced on appeal to 10 days RI (conviction maintained on both counts)

PSI of Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad City, caught in uniform in a 18.10.1985 ACB decoy trap targeting police/RTO extortion of highway truck drivers around Ahmedabad (demanding 'entry fee'/tea-water money from driver \[name withheld\]), was convicted on 21.09.1987 by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad in Special Case No.28 of 1986 under s.161 IPC and s.5(1)(d)/5(2) of the PC Act 1947 and sentenced to one year's RI with Rs.100 fine. The Gujarat High Court (J.R. Vora, 01.09.2006) partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the conviction on both counts but reducing the imprisonment to 10 days RI.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1091097/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-35-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-35-004)

## State vs Gandhinagar Police Jamadar (Police) (t2w3-35-010)

**Record:** t2w3-35-010
**Title:** State vs Gandhinagar Police Jamadar (Police)
**Court:** Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) (Special Case No.5 of 1987) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State vs Gandhinagar Police Jamadar (Police)
**Conviction:** 1 September 1992
**Incident date:** 1985-12-01 (1985)
**Place:** Gandhinagar, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d) r/w s.5(2); IPC s.161
**Officers (gated display forms):** Jamadar (Police), Dabhoda Police Station area, Gandhinagar district (Ahmedabad Rural jurisdiction)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 6 months RI at trial; reduced on appeal to 1 month RI

\[name withheld\] \[name withheld\], the police officer handling a December 1985 field-quarrel complaint (ss.323/506(2) IPC) at Dabhoda Police Station, who demanded and accepted Rs.600 from complainant \[name withheld\] for acting on the complaint, was convicted on 01.09.1992 by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Case No.5 of 1987 under s.5(1)(d)/5(2) of the PC Act 1947 (6 months RI + Rs.700 fine). Co-accused2 (Mukhi/police patel of village Magodi) was acquitted at trial. The Gujarat High Court (C.K. Buch, 29.03.2007) confirmed the conviction and fine but reduced the substantive sentence to 1 month RI.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1433203/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-35-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-35-010)

## State vs Mahesana Police Police Head Constable (Jamadar (Investigation)) and others (t2w3-35-005)

**Record:** t2w3-35-005
**Title:** State vs Mahesana Police Police Head Constable (Jamadar (Investigation)) and others
**Court:** Special Judge, Mehsana (Special (ACB) Case No.3 of 1986) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State vs Mahesana Police Police Head Constable (Jamadar (Investigation)) and others
**Conviction:** 22 November 1991
**Incident date:** 1984-10-07 (1984)
**Place:** Mahesana, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.161; PC Act 1947 s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable (Jamadar (Investigation)), Kadi Police Station, Mehsana district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.500 fine (s.161); 3 years RI + Rs.1,000 fine (s.5(2)); acquitted of IPC s.218 at trial

Police Head Constable. \[name withheld\], entrusted with investigation work as \[name withheld\] (Investigation) at Kadi Police Station, who on 07.10.1984 demanded illegal gratification for preparing a favourable investigation report and submitting it to the court early, was convicted on 22.11.1991 by the Special Judge, Mehsana in Special (ACB) Case No.3 of 1986 under s.161 IPC (1 year RI + Rs.500 fine) and s.5(2) of the PC Act 1947 (3 years RI + Rs.1,000 fine), and acquitted of IPC s.218. The Gujarat High Court (C.K. Buch, 13.06.2007) dismissed the appeal (pursued by his widow \[name withheld\] after his death) and confirmed the conviction and sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1106743/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-35-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-35-005)

## CBI vs Gujarat Police Head Constable and others (t2w2-08-012)

**Record:** t2w2-08-012
**Title:** CBI vs Gujarat Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Special CBI Court, Mumbai (Judge U.D. Salvi; trial transferred from Gujarat by Supreme Court) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Gujarat Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 21 January 2008
**Incident date:** 2002-03-03 (2002)
**Place:** Dahod, Gujarat
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 217; IPC 218
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Limkheda Police Station, Dahod, Gujarat Police
**Victims:** Dahod woman
**Sentence:** Not confirmed in sources reviewed

Head Constable of Limkheda Police Station (Dahod) was convicted on 21 January 2008 by Special CBI Judge U.D. Salvi in Mumbai — where the Supreme Court had transferred the \[name withheld\] trial — for falsifying evidence/refusing to record \[name withheld\]'s initial complaint after the March 2002 gang-rape and murder of her family during the Gujarat riots; eleven other accused received life imprisonment while six other police officials and two doctors were acquitted at trial. The Bombay High Court in May 2017 upheld the life sentences and additionally convicted the seven trial-acquitted policemen/doctors; the appeal status of his own trial conviction is not confirmed in the sources reviewed.

**Sources (5):** [api.sci.gov.in](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/38741/38741_2022_12_1501_49383_Judgement_08-Jan-2024.pdf); [en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilkis_Bano_case); [pucl.org](http://pucl.org/manage-writings/the-twenty-two-year-old-struggle-of-bilkis-bano-a-journey-of-hope-courage-and-camaraderie/); [newsfolo.com](https://www.newsfolo.com/india/bombay-high-court-rejects-cbis-death-plea-convicts-bilkis-bano-case/2708/amp/); [scoopwhoop.com](https://www.scoopwhoop.com/news/bombay-hc-upholds-conviction-of-12-accused-in-2002-bilkis-bano-gang-rape-case/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-012)

## State vs Ahmedabad Police Police Constable (t2w2-08-028)

**Record:** t2w2-08-028
**Title:** State vs Ahmedabad Police Police Constable
**Court:** Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Ahmedabad Police Police Constable
**Conviction:** February 2010
**Incident date:** 2003-12-01 (2003)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 s.66(1)(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Ahmedabad (point duty)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 months simple imprisonment + Rs.500 fine

Police Constable, found on point duty in December 2003 unable to hold posture with slurred speech and 0.0945% blood alcohol (over the 0.05% limit), was convicted in February 2010 by a Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad under Bombay Prohibition Act s.66(1)(b) and sentenced to 3 months' SI with Rs.500 fine (acquitted under s.85(1)(3)). His appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court Ahmedabad was dismissed in 2011, and the Gujarat High Court (Justice R.T. Vachhani; 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 159) dismissed his criminal revision on 6 October 2025, holding intoxication on duty erodes public trust and directing surrender within two weeks.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/gujarat-high-court-intoxication-duty-public-trust-integrity-conviction-police-constable-305912); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/mahendrasinh-balusinh-raol-vs-state-of-gujarat-624254.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-028)

## State vs Gujarat Police Constable (t2w3-11-002)

**Record:** t2w3-11-002
**Title:** State vs Gujarat Police Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Special Case (ACB) No.1 of 2008) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State vs Gujarat Police Constable
**Conviction:** 31 May 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dahod, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Garbada Police Station, Dahod, Gujarat Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7); 1 year RI (ss.13(1)/13(2)), concurrent

The Gujarat High Court records that Constable of Garbada Police Station, Dahod, charge-sheeted under s.7 of the PC Act in Special Case (ACB) No.1 of 2008, was convicted and sentenced on 31 May 2011 by the Special Judge to one year's RI with Rs.1,000 fine on each of the s.7 and ss.13(1)/13(2) counts. His Criminal Appeal No.686 of 2011 was admitted and pending (bail granted 24 June 2011, conviction not stayed), and his challenge to dismissal orders of 2012-2013 was not entertained on merits in the 5 March 2018 service order.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179816382/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-11-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-11-002)

## State vs Jamnagar Police Police Constable (t2w3-35-011)

**Record:** t2w3-35-011
**Title:** State vs Jamnagar Police Police Constable
**Court:** Special Judge, Jamnagar (Special Case No.5 of 1997) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State vs Jamnagar Police Police Constable
**Conviction:** 27 July 1998
**Incident date:** 1996-12-09 (1996)
**Place:** Jamnagar, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Jamnagar (Subhash Market area)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7); 3 years RI (s.13(1)(d)); concurrent

Police Constable, caught in an ACB decoy trap after complaints that local police constables were extorting truck/tempo drivers at Subhash Market, Jamnagar — demanding Rs.20 from a truck driver in the early morning — was convicted on 27.07.1998 by the Special Judge, Jamnagar in Special Case No.5 of 1997 under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to 1 year's RI (s.7) and 3 years' RI (s.13(1)(d)) with fines, concurrently. The Gujarat High Court (Z.K. Saiyed, 15.06.2011) dismissed Criminal Appeal No.688 of 1998, confirmed the conviction, cancelled his bail and directed surrender within six weeks.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190444719/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-35-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-35-011)

## SIT vs \[name withheld\] & Ors (Deepda Darwaza massacre, Visnagar; 11 of family burnt alive 28-02-2002; CR 1-60/2002) (t2w2-08-026)

**Record:** t2w2-08-026
**Title:** SIT vs \[name withheld\] & Ors (Deepda Darwaza massacre, Visnagar; 11 of family burnt alive 28-02-2002; CR 1-60/2002)
**Court:** Designated (SIT) Court, Mehsana (Judge S.C. Srivastava) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** SIT vs \[name withheld\] & Ors (Deepda Darwaza massacre, Visnagar; 11 of family burnt alive 28-02-2002; CR 1-60/2002)
**Conviction:** 30 July 2012
**Incident date:** 2002-02-28 (2002)
**Place:** Mehsana, Gujarat
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector (former PI, Visnagar town; retired by verdict), Visnagar Police, Mehsana, Gujarat Police
**Victims:** Mehsana woman
**Sentence:** 1 year imprisonment

Former Visnagar town Police Inspector was convicted of dereliction of duty and sentenced to one year's imprisonment on 30 July 2012 by designated SIT Judge S.\[name withheld\], Mehsana, in the Deepda Darwaza massacre case (CR 1-60/2002) in which 11 members of one family were burnt alive on 28 February 2002; 21 co-accused received life terms under IPC s.307 (murder/conspiracy charges dropped) and 61 were acquitted. The SIT appealed the acquittals and sought s.307-to-s.302 enhancement for the 21 (admitted by the Gujarat High Court DB on 7 May 2013); whether Patel challenged his own conviction is not stated. ANI copy names the officer as 'former police inspector of Visnagar town, M K Patel'.

**Sources (3):** [legalindia.com](https://www.legalindia.com/news/hc-admits-sit-appeals-in-deepda-darwaza-case); [manipur.org](https://www.manipur.org/news/2012/07/30/61-in-deepda-darwaza-riots-case/); [thefreelibrary.com](https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Life+imprisonment+for+21+in+Gujarat+massacre-a0298086378)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-026)

## State (ACB) vs Gujarat Police Police Constable (t2w4-15-001)

**Record:** t2w4-15-001
**Title:** State (ACB) vs Gujarat Police Police Constable
**Court:** 3rd Additional Special Judge, Modasa, Sabarkantha (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) vs Gujarat Police Police Constable
**Conviction:** 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sabarkantha, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Gujarat Police (Sabarkantha; unit not stated in order)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Not stated in admission order

Police Constable was convicted by the 3rd Additional Special Judge, Modasa (Sabarkantha) in Special (ACB) Case No. 07 of 2013 under ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding a Rs 5,000 bribe from the complainant in connection with a criminal case; the conviction rested on panch-witness evidence after the complainant turned hostile. The Gujarat High Court (R.D. Kothari, J.) admitted his appeal against conviction on 13 November 2013. Sentence quantum and final appeal outcome are not stated in the order reviewed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44138086/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-15-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-15-001)

## CBI vs Ahmedabad Police Police Inspector (Immigration) (t2w4-24-008)

**Record:** t2w4-24-008
**Title:** CBI vs Ahmedabad Police Police Inspector (Immigration)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ahmedabad (CBI Court No.2) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Ahmedabad Police Police Inspector (Immigration)
**Conviction:** 5 October 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 109; IPC 419; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector (Immigration), SVP International Airport, Ahmedabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment (each of the four convicts: \[name withheld\] plus three private persons)

The Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ahmedabad, on 5 October 2017 convicted \[name withheld\], then Police Inspector (Immigration) at SVP International Airport, Ahmedabad, with three private persons (Ashik Hussain Ali Oonwala, Mohd. Siddiqui Abdul Gani Merchant and Jayesh Rambhai Patel), sentencing each to two years Rigorous Imprisonment with a Rs 10,000 fine. CBI alleged \[name withheld\] skipped immigration clearance and allowed impersonators through; chargesheet was filed under IPC ss.120-B/109/419 and PC Act s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) before CBI Court No.2 Ahmedabad on 31.05.2001, and the trial court found the accused guilty. Offence-period dates are not stated in the release.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjQ5Ng==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-24-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-24-008)

## State of Gujarat vs Tapi Police Police Constable (t2-06-006)

**Record:** t2-06-006
**Title:** State of Gujarat vs Tapi Police Police Constable
**Court:** Additional (Ad-hoc) Sessions Judge, Tapi at Vyara (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State of Gujarat vs Tapi Police Police Constable
**Conviction:** 30 April 2019
**Incident date:** 2010-08-12 (2010)
**Place:** Tapi, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(b) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Tapi district police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Per trial judgment dated 30.04.2019 (sentence suspended on appeal; quantum not stated in HC order)

The Additional (Ad-hoc) Sessions Judge, Tapi at Vyara convicted Police Constable on 30 April 2019 in Tapi ACB C.R. No. I-4 of 2010 under ss.7, 12 and 13(1)(b)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. He was dismissed from service on 19 July 2019 following the conviction. Criminal Appeal No. 1080 of 2019 stands admitted with only the sentence suspended, and the Gujarat High Court upheld the dismissal on 20 March 2026 (C/SCA/7162/2022).

**Sources (7):** [fhwzizvulsqxfzkaqeia.supabase.co](https://fhwzizvulsqxfzkaqeia.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/judgments/article-3112a-exempts-show-cause-notice-for-corruption-convictions-gujarat-hc-upholds-dismissal-without-natural-justice-bc654f.pdf); [courtbook.in](https://courtbook.in/posts/gujarat-hc-dismissal-without-notice-corruption-case); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182845838/); [s3.courtbook.in](https://s3.courtbook.in/2026/03/Piyushbhai-Bhagvatbhai-Gamit-vs-State-of-Gujarat-Ors._compressed.pdf); [thebarbulletin.com](https://thebarbulletin.com/gujarat-hc-no-show-cause-article-311/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/gujarat-high-court-police-constable-dismissal-corruption-case-527557); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/03/23/2-663297.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-06-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-06-006)

## State of Gujarat vs Jamnagar Police Assistant Superintendent of Police (IPS; dismissed) (t2-06-003)

**Record:** t2-06-003
**Title:** State of Gujarat vs Jamnagar Police Assistant Superintendent of Police (IPS; dismissed)
**Court:** Sessions Court, Jamnagar, Gujarat (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State of Gujarat vs Jamnagar Police Assistant Superintendent of Police (IPS; dismissed)
**Conviction:** 20 June 2019
**Incident date:** 1990-11-01 (1990)
**Place:** Jamnagar, Gujarat
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 323; IPC 506
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Superintendent of Police (IPS; dismissed), Jamnagar; Police Constable, Jamnagar; Police Constable, Jamnagar; Police Constable, Jamnagar; Police Constable, Jamnagar; Police Sub-Inspector, Jamnagar; Police Sub-Inspector, Jamnagar
**Victims:** Jamnagar man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment for Bhatt and Zala (ss.302/323/506(1)); five others convicted under ss.323/506(1) (trial sentence per judgment)

The Jamnagar Sessions Court convicted seven Jamnagar policemen on 20 June 2019 for custodial torture leading to the death of a Jamnagar man, detained during a November 1990 Bharat Bandh crackdown and beaten with exhortation by then-ASP \[name withheld\]. Bhatt and constable received life terms for murder; three constables and two PSIs were convicted of hurt and criminal intimidation. The Gujarat High Court upheld the convictions on 9 January 2024; Bhatt's SLP is pending before the Supreme Court.

**Sources (10):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/breaking-sanjiv-bhatt-sentenced-to-life-imprisonment-in-30-year-old-custodial-death-case-145789); [indianexpress.com](https://indianexpress.com/article/india/gujarat-custody-death-case-jamnagar-court-relied-on-medical-records-circumstantial-evidence-to-convict-sanjiv-bhatt-5793975/); [indianexpress.com](https://indianexpress.com/article/india/gujarat-custody-death-case-sacked-ips-officer-sanjiv-bhatt-gets-life-in-jail-5791650/); [lawstreet.co](https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/ex-ips-officer-sanjeev-bhatt-sentenced-to-life-in-30-year-old-custodial-death-case/); [lawstreet.co](https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/sc-dismisses-bail-plea-by-sacked-ips-officer-sanjiv-bhatt-in-1990-custodial-death-case); [lawtrend.in](https://lawtrend.in/supreme-court-issues-notice-to-gujarat-government-on-sanjiv-bhatts-plea-against-custodial-death-case-conviction/); [timesofindia.indiatimes.com](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sacked-gujarat-ips-officer-sanjiv-bhatt-gets-life-imprisonment-in-custody-death-case/articleshow/69881850.cms); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/gujarat-high-court-upholds-conviction-life-term-sanjiv-bhatt-1990-custodial-death-case); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/cra14722019gjhc2404709920196709012024240110210032-515586.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/gujarat-high-court-dismisses-ex-ips-officer-sanjiv-bhatt-appeal-conviction-life-term-1990-custodial-death-case-246264)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-06-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-06-003)

## State vs Gujarat Police Constable (t2w2-08-005)

**Record:** t2w2-08-005
**Title:** State vs Gujarat Police Constable
**Court:** Trial (Special ACB) Court, Valsad (exact designation not stated in HC order) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State vs Gujarat Police Constable
**Conviction:** 7 October 2020
**Incident date:** 2005-01-01 (2005)
**Place:** Valsad, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Prevention of Corruption Act
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Gujarat Police, Valsad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine

Constable of Valsad, booked in a 2005 Prevention of Corruption Act case, was convicted by the trial court on 10 October 2017 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine; he was later dismissed from service by the SP in May 2018. The Gujarat High Court suspended his sentence on 3 November 2017 and the criminal appeal was pending when the service-dismissal challenge was decided on 7 October 2020.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/136140143/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-005)

## State of Gujarat vs Gujarat Police Unarmed Police Constable and others (t2-06-007)

**Record:** t2-06-007
**Title:** State of Gujarat vs Gujarat Police Unarmed Police Constable and others
**Court:** Special Judge (ACB), Gujarat (Special ACB Case No. 03/2020) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State of Gujarat vs Gujarat Police Unarmed Police Constable and others
**Conviction:** 20 March 2024
**Incident date:** 2012-01-01 (2012)
**Place:** Unknown, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Unarmed Police Constable, Gujarat Police (unit not stated in order)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine (s.7); 1 year RI + Rs 5,000 fine (ss.13(1)(d), 13(2))

Unarmed Police Constable \[name withheld\] was convicted on 20 March 2024 in Special ACB Case No. 03/2020 for accepting a Rs 25,000 bribe, and sentenced to three years' RI with fine under s.7 and one year's RI with fine under ss.13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was dismissed from service on 1 July 2024. Criminal Appeal No. 768/2024 is admitted with sentence suspended (order dated 08.04.2024); the convicting Special Court station is not named in the HC order.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182845838/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-06-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-06-007)

## State vs Gujarat Police Police officer (rank not stated) and others (t2w2-08-010)

**Record:** t2w2-08-010
**Title:** State vs Gujarat Police Police officer (rank not stated) and others
**Court:** 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana (Special Atrocity Case No.4 of 2020) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Gujarat Police Police officer (rank not stated) and others
**Conviction:** 7 March 2024
**Incident date:** 2020-02-13 (2020)
**Place:** Mehsana, Gujarat
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 114; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act s.3(2)(v)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police officer (rank not stated), Gujarat Police; Police officer (rank not stated), Gujarat Police; Police officer (rank not stated), Gujarat Police
**Victims:** Mehsana man, age 18
**Sentence:** Rigorous life imprisonment

Three Gujarat police officers including \[name withheld\] were convicted on 7 March 2024 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Special Atrocity Case No.4/2020 and sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment under IPC ss.302/114 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for beating to death an \[name withheld\] arrested by Naroda Police Station on 12-02-2020 who died in custody the next day after escaping a Zonal Safety Home. The Gujarat High Court (Justices Ilesh Vora & S.V. Pinto) suspended the sentence and granted regular bail on 3 December 2024 (2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 199) during pendency of Criminal Appeal No.2152/2024.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/crma22024gjhc240517152024303122024-577361.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/gujarat-high-court-bail-suspension-of-sentence-police-officers-scheduled-caste-boy-murder-279723)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-010)

## State vs Gujarat Police Ex-policeman (rank/unit not stated) (t2w2-08-024)

**Record:** t2w2-08-024
**Title:** State vs Gujarat Police Ex-policeman (rank/unit not stated)
**Court:** Sessions Court, Rajkot (Judge S.V. Sharma) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Gujarat Police Ex-policeman (rank/unit not stated)
**Conviction:** 30 January 2025
**Incident date:** 2016-02-28 (2016)
**Place:** Rajkot, Gujarat
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ex-policeman (rank/unit not stated), Gujarat Police (former)
**Victims:** Rajkot man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment + fine (each of 3 convicts; 4 co-accused acquitted)

Ex-policeman \[name withheld\] was sentenced to life imprisonment with fine on 30 January 2025 by Rajkot Sessions Judge S.V. Sharma along with businessman \[name withheld\] and driver \[name withheld\] for the 2016 murder of oil-mill manager a Rajkot man, who was suspected of embezzling Rs.65 lakh and died after a violent confrontation; approver Samir Gandhi was the key witness and four other employees were acquitted. Single-source record (PTI via DevDiscourse); exact sections, Bhatt's former rank/unit and appeal status not stated.

**Sources (3):** [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3245929-gujarat-businessmans-life-sentence-brings-justice-to-2016-murder-case); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5808ea682713e175bec1a500); [gujaratheadline.com](https://www.gujaratheadline.com/rajmoti-oil-mill-owner-samir-shah-will-be-declared-absconder-shah-went-underground/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-024)

## State (ACB) vs Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector (t2w3-12-001)

**Record:** t2w3-12-001
**Title:** State (ACB) vs Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special ACB Court (exact station not stated in High Court order) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) vs Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 1 April 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Railway Police Station, Western Railway
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years imprisonment + fine

Police Sub-Inspector of the Railway Police Station, Western Railway, named in a Prevention of Corruption Act FIR and tried while in service until his retirement on 31.05.2015, was convicted by the Special ACB Court on 01.04.2025 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment with fine, as recorded by the Gujarat High Court (Nikhil S. Kariel, J.) in C/SCA/8090/2025. Following the conviction, the In-charge Police \[name withheld\], Western Railway, Ahmedabad stopped his provisional pension and ordered recovery of pension paid since retirement; the High Court on 27.06.2025 upheld the stoppage but quashed the recovery. No appeal against the conviction is mentioned in the order.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146115594/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-12-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-12-001)

## CBI vs Railway Protection Force Constable (t2w2-08-025)

**Record:** t2w2-08-025
**Title:** CBI vs Railway Protection Force Constable
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ahmedabad (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Railway Protection Force Constable
**Conviction:** 21 July 2025
**Incident date:** 2002-08-17 (2002)
**Place:** Ahmedabad, Gujarat
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** criminal conspiracy; theft; dishonestly receiving/retaining stolen property; disappearance of evidence; common intention; criminal misconduct
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Railway Protection Force, Ajmer
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years simple imprisonment + Rs.5,00,000 fine (each of 8 convicts)

RPF Constable (Ajmer) was among eight former railway employees convicted and sentenced on 21 July 2025 by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ahmedabad to five years' simple imprisonment with Rs.5 lakh fine each for the August 2002 leakage of the Probationary Assistant Station Master exam question paper, collecting Rs.50,000-1,00,000 per candidate; charges included criminal conspiracy, theft, receiving stolen property, disappearance of evidence and criminal misconduct. CBI registered the case on 17 August 2002 and charge-sheeted on 28 July 2003; one private accused died during trial. Official CBI press release via PIB Ahmedabad.

**Sources (3):** [pib.gov.in](https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2146612&reg=3&lang=2); [news.careers360.com](https://news.careers360.com/exam-paper-leak-23-years-on-eight-former-railway-officials-get-five-year-imprisonment); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3513150-justice-served-in-23-year-old-railway-exam-leak-case)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-025)

## State (SVB Gurgaon) v. Haryana Police Head Constable (t2w4-11-024)

**Record:** t2w4-11-024
**Title:** State (SVB Gurgaon) v. Haryana Police Head Constable
**Court:** Trial court not stated in stay order (PC Act trial; appeal Crl.A. No.2107-SB of 2005) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SVB Gurgaon) v. Haryana Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 2005
**Incident date:** 2003-12-09 (2003)
**Place:** Nuh, Haryana
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 353; IPC 225
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Haryana Police, Police Station Taoru (Nuh district; dismissed from service 09-02-2006)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 9 months RI under each of ss.353 and 225 IPC

Per the High Court order, Head Constable of Haryana Police (PS Taoru), prosecuted under ss.7/13 of the PC Act and ss.225/353/186 IPC for demanding Rs 15,000/month (settled at Rs 10,000/month, payable 09-12-2003) from a dumper operator and then obstructing the SVB Gurgaon raiding party (DSP) and helping SHO — from whose pocket 20 notes of Rs 500 were recovered — to bolt from the trap spot, stands convicted under ss.353 and 225 IPC with 9 months RI plus Rs 1,000 fine on each count. The appeal was admitted on 06-12-2005 and was still pending in 2013 (stay of conviction sought, dismissed from service 09-02-2006); trial-court name and exact conviction date not stated in the stay order (conviction pre-dates December 2005). SHO 's own trial outcome not traced — no row added for him.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21326974/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-024)

## CBI v. Haryana Police Inspector General of Police at time of offence (former Director General of Police, Haryana, at verdict) and others (t2-07-009)

**Record:** t2-07-009
**Title:** CBI v. Haryana Police Inspector General of Police at time of offence (former Director General of Police, Haryana, at verdict) and others
**Court:** Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Haryana Police Inspector General of Police at time of offence (former Director General of Police, Haryana, at verdict) and others
**Conviction:** 21 December 2009
**Incident date:** 1990-08-12 (1990)
**Place:** Panchkula, Haryana
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 354
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector General of Police at time of offence (former Director General of Police, Haryana, at verdict), Haryana Police (also headed Haryana Lawn Tennis Association)
**Victims:** Panchkula girl, age 14
**Sentence:** 6 months RI + Rs 1,000 fine (21 December 2009); enhanced to 18 months RI on revision (Sessions court, 25 May 2010); Supreme Court upheld guilt but reduced sentence to period already undergone (5 months) considering advanced age (23 September 2016)

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, convicted former Haryana DGP on 21 December 2009 under section 354 IPC for molesting a teenage tennis player in the HLTA office in 1990, after a CBI prosecution following the family's 19-year fight. The trial court gave six months, enhanced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment on revision in May 2010. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction, and on 23 September 2016 the Supreme Court (Justices Gowda and Agrawal) upheld the finding of guilt while reducing the sentence to the five months already served as a special case given his very advanced age.

**Sources (6):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30822518/); [topnews.in](http://www.topnews.in/ruchika-case-rajya-sabha-discusses-matter-accused-dgp-gets-sixmonth-jail-term-2246433); [en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruchika_Girhotra_case); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12136724/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/ruchika-molestation-case-sc-upholds-rathods-conviction-reduces-jail-term); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/09/23/ruchika-girhotra-case-s-p-s-rathores-conviction-upheld-sentence-mitigated-due-to-old-age/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-07-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-07-009)

## State (SVB Rohtak) v. Haryana Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-11-003)

**Record:** t2w4-11-003
**Title:** State (SVB Rohtak) v. Haryana Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State (SVB Rohtak) v. Haryana Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 3 February 2004
**Incident date:** 2002-08-09 (2002)
**Place:** Rohtak, Haryana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Haryana Police, PS Sadar Rohtak
**Victims:** Rohtak man
**Sentence:** 4 years RI

Per the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment, ASI of Haryana Police (PS Sadar Rohtak) was convicted on 03-02-2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak under ss.7/13 of the PC Act for demanding Rs 10,000 (settled at Rs 5,000) from complainant \[name withheld\] to release his detained nephew, on an SVB Rohtak trap laid on his 09-08-2002 complaint, and was sentenced to 4 years RI with Rs 25,000 fine. The High Court upheld \[name withheld\]'s conviction on 03-03-2010 while acquitting co-accused Constable, who had merely held the tainted money without demand or direct acceptance.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87696362/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-003)

## State v. Haryana Police Head Constable (t2-07-011)

**Record:** t2-07-011
**Title:** State v. Haryana Police Head Constable
**Court:** Court of Special Judge / Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, Haryana (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Haryana Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 12 January 2000
**Incident date:** 1994-07-18 (1994)
**Place:** Jhajjar, Haryana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Haryana Police — police post Linepar, Police Station City Bahadurgarh
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment plus Rs 1,000 fine (3 months further RI in default); on appeal (P&H High Court, 30 August 2011) conviction maintained but RI reduced to 1 year given 17-year pendency and appellant's age (73)

Special Judge / Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, by judgment dated 12 January 2000 and sentence order dated 14 January 2000 convicted Head Constable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a Rs 1,000 bribe on 19 July 1994 to hush up a case against the complainant's brother, in a trap laid with phenolphthalein-marked notes and the SDM as shadow witness. The High Court (Justice L.N. Mittal, 30 August 2011) upheld the conviction, holding the trap and demand proved, but reduced rigorous imprisonment from two years to one. For T2-21: conviction details are recited in the appellate judgment, which was the source actually opened.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149925161/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-07-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-07-011)

## State v. District Police Head Constable (t2w3-33-004)

**Record:** t2w3-33-004
**Title:** State v. District Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge, Delhi (FIR PS AC Branch Delhi; exact complex not stated in record) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. District Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 29 March 2011
**Incident date:** 2003-02-06 (2003)
**Place:** Panipat, Haryana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Commando Wing, District Police Panipat, Haryana Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Convicted 29.03.2011 by Special Judge, Delhi under ss.7/13 PC Act 1988; sentence quantum not stated in the P&H High Court service record (interim bail granted by the Special Judge; appeal admitted by Delhi High Court 07.04.2011)

Per the P&H High Court judgments in CWP 12027/2012 (24.07.2013) and LPA 1516/2013 (21.01.2014), Head Constable of the Commando Wing, Panipat was convicted on 29.03.2011 by the Special Judge, Delhi under ss.7/13 PC Act (FIR 6/2003, PS AC Branch Delhi) and dismissed from service on 07.06.2012. His Delhi High Court appeal (admitted 07.04.2011) was pending with conviction unstayed; both service challenges were dismissed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129035888/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154534730/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-33-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-33-004)

## CBI v. Haryana Police Ex-Head Constable / Head Constable (t2w3-24-009)

**Record:** t2w3-24-009
**Title:** CBI v. Haryana Police Ex-Head Constable / Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ambala (Haryana) (trial concluded before Special Judge, CBI Cases, Panchkula, per PR) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Haryana Police Ex-Head Constable / Head Constable
**Conviction:** 1 August 2013
**Incident date:** 2008-04-10 (2008)
**Place:** Rohtak, Haryana
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 376(2)(a); IPC 376(2)(g); IPC 506/34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ex-Head Constable / Head Constable, CIA-1 (CIA Staff), Rohtak, Haryana Police
**Victims:** Rohtak woman
**Sentence:** 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ambala sentenced then-Head Constable to ten years RI with Rs.40,000 fine in the case of the rape of a Rohtak woman and her subsequent suicide. The release states EHC \[name withheld\] called the woman to CIA Staff Rohtak on 10.04.2008 (a day after her husband's arrest in a motorcycle-theft case) and raped her with another person in a room by the main gate; after Haryana Police inaction she died by suicide at Police Headquarters Panchkula on 09.06.2008, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court ordered a CBI probe; CBI chargesheeted \[name withheld\] and Constable for rape on 08.09.2008 and three more CIA-1 men for confinement and record-framing conspiracy on 15.04.2009.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzUzNQ==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-009)

## CBI v. Haryana Police Constable & Ors (Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case; chargesheet 08.09.2008 u/s 376(2)(a)(g), 506/34) (t2w3-24-010)

**Record:** t2w3-24-010
**Title:** CBI v. Haryana Police Constable & Ors (Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case; chargesheet 08.09.2008 u/s 376(2)(a)(g), 506/34)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ambala (Haryana) (trial concluded before Special Judge, CBI Cases, Panchkula, per PR) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Haryana Police Constable & Ors (Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case; chargesheet 08.09.2008 u/s 376(2)(a)(g), 506/34)
**Conviction:** 1 August 2013
**Incident date:** 2008-04-10 (2008)
**Place:** Rohtak, Haryana
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 376(2)(a); IPC 376(2)(g); IPC 506/34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, CIA-1 (CIA Staff), Rohtak, Haryana Police
**Victims:** Rohtak woman
**Sentence:** 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ambala sentenced then-Constable to ten years RI with Rs.40,000 fine alongside EHC Balraj in the Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case. The release states both were chargesheeted on 08.09.2008 for the 10.04.2008 rape of a woman inside CIA Staff Rohtak; the victim died by suicide at Panchkula on 09.06.2008 after local police inaction, leading the High Court to hand the case to CBI.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzUzNQ==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-010)

## CBI v. Haryana Police Head Constable & Ors (Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case; supplementary chargesheet 15.04.2009 u/s 120-B r/w 342 and 120-B r/w 218 IPC) (t2w3-24-011)

**Record:** t2w3-24-011
**Title:** CBI v. Haryana Police Head Constable & Ors (Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case; supplementary chargesheet 15.04.2009 u/s 120-B r/w 342 and 120-B r/w 218 IPC)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ambala (Haryana) (trial concluded before Special Judge, CBI Cases, Panchkula, per PR) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Haryana Police Head Constable & Ors (Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case; supplementary chargesheet 15.04.2009 u/s 120-B r/w 342 and 120-B r/w 218 IPC)
**Conviction:** 1 August 2013
**Incident date:** 2008-04-10 (2008)
**Place:** Rohtak, Haryana
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B r/w 342; IPC 120-B r/w 218
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, CIA-1, Rohtak, Haryana Police
**Victims:** Rohtak woman
**Sentence:** 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ambala sentenced then-Head Constable to one year RI with Rs.5,000 fine in the Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case. The release states CBI's supplementary chargesheet of 15.04.2009 charged \[name withheld\] with criminal conspiracy for wrongful confinement (120-B r/w 342) and framing of incorrect records (120-B r/w 218) along with the other CIA-1 men, after the main rape chargesheet against Balraj and \[name withheld\].

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzUzNQ==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-011)

## CBI v. Haryana Police Ex-Head Constable / Head Constable (EHC) & Ors (Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case; supplementary chargesheet 15.04.2009 u/s 120-B r/w 342 and 120-B r/w 218 IPC) (t2w3-24-012)

**Record:** t2w3-24-012
**Title:** CBI v. Haryana Police Ex-Head Constable / Head Constable (EHC) & Ors (Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case; supplementary chargesheet 15.04.2009 u/s 120-B r/w 342 and 120-B r/w 218 IPC)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ambala (Haryana) (trial concluded before Special Judge, CBI Cases, Panchkula, per PR) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Haryana Police Ex-Head Constable / Head Constable (EHC) & Ors (Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case; supplementary chargesheet 15.04.2009 u/s 120-B r/w 342 and 120-B r/w 218 IPC)
**Conviction:** 1 August 2013
**Incident date:** 2008-04-10 (2008)
**Place:** Rohtak, Haryana
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B r/w 342; IPC 120-B r/w 218
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ex-Head Constable / Head Constable (EHC), CIA-1, Rohtak, Haryana Police
**Victims:** Rohtak woman
**Sentence:** 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ambala sentenced then-EHC \[name withheld\] to one year RI with Rs.5,000 fine in the Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case. The release states CBI's supplementary chargesheet of 15.04.2009 charged him with criminal conspiracy for wrongful confinement and framing of incorrect records, as one of the CIA-1 Rohtak men tried alongside principal rape accused \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\].

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzUzNQ==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-012)

## CBI v. Haryana Police Ex-Head Constable / Head Constable (EHC) & Ors (Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case; supplementary chargesheet 15.04.2009 u/s 120-B r/w 342 and 120-B r/w 218 IPC) (t2w3-24-013)

**Record:** t2w3-24-013
**Title:** CBI v. Haryana Police Ex-Head Constable / Head Constable (EHC) & Ors (Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case; supplementary chargesheet 15.04.2009 u/s 120-B r/w 342 and 120-B r/w 218 IPC)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ambala (Haryana) (trial concluded before Special Judge, CBI Cases, Panchkula, per PR) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Haryana Police Ex-Head Constable / Head Constable (EHC) & Ors (Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case; supplementary chargesheet 15.04.2009 u/s 120-B r/w 342 and 120-B r/w 218 IPC)
**Conviction:** 1 August 2013
**Incident date:** 2008-04-10 (2008)
**Place:** Rohtak, Haryana
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B r/w 342; IPC 120-B r/w 218
**Officers (gated display forms):** Ex-Head Constable / Head Constable (EHC), CIA-1, Rohtak, Haryana Police
**Victims:** Rohtak woman
**Sentence:** 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ambala sentenced then-EHC \[name withheld\] to one year RI with Rs.5,000 fine in the Rohtak CIA rape-suicide case. The release states CBI's supplementary chargesheet of 15.04.2009 charged him with criminal conspiracy for wrongful confinement and framing of incorrect records, as one of the CIA-1 Rohtak men tried alongside principal rape accused \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\].

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzUzNQ==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-013)

## State v. Haryana Police Head Constable (appointed Constable 04.08.1975) (t2w3-33-002)

**Record:** t2w3-33-002
**Title:** State v. Haryana Police Head Constable (appointed Constable 04.08.1975)
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Rohtak, Haryana (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Haryana Police Head Constable (appointed Constable 04.08.1975)
**Conviction:** 3 March 2014
**Incident date:** 1988-05-21 (1988)
**Place:** Rohtak, Haryana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 420; IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d); PC Act 1947 s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (appointed Constable 04.08.1975), Haryana Police, District Rohtak
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI imposed 07.06.1989 by Special Judge, Rohtak; on appeal (Crl.A. 294-SB of 1989) the P&H High Court upheld the conviction on 31.03.2003 but released him on probation for 3 years on bonds to CJM Rohtak

Per the P&H High Court judgment of 03.03.2014 in CWP 12030/2010, Head Constable of Haryana Police (Rohtak) was convicted by the Special Judge, Rohtak on 05.06.1989 for corruption (FIR 182/1988, PS Civil Lines Rohtak; counsel stated the demand was Rs 20) and sentenced to 3 years RI. The High Court upheld the conviction on 31.03.2003, converting the sentence to 3 years probation, and in 2014 dismissed his challenge to his dismissal from service, holding the corruption conviction involved moral turpitude.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23029604/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/183381/dharampal-appellant-hash-state-of-haryana-and-others-respondent-4/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-33-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-33-002)

## CBI v. Haryana Police Inspector (t2w2-13-002)

**Record:** t2w2-13-002
**Title:** CBI v. Haryana Police Inspector
**Court:** District & Sessions Judge, Ambala (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Haryana Police Inspector
**Conviction:** 18 March 2014
**Incident date:** 1994-10-25 (1994)
**Place:** Sonipat, Haryana
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.302; IPC s.201; IPC s.218; IPC s.193; IPC s.34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Haryana Police; Constable, Haryana Police
**Victims:** Sonipat man; Sonipat man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment + Rs.10,000 fine each; then-DGP Lachhman Dass and two other policemen acquitted

The Special CBI Court on 20 March 2014 sentenced then-Inspector and Constable of the Haryana Police to life imprisonment for the 25 October 1994 fake encounter in which a Sonipat man and \[name withheld\] — both in police custody — were shot dead at close range and shown as killed in an exchange of fire. Then-DGP Lachhman Dass and two other policemen were acquitted; the CBI had registered the case (RC-2(S)/96) on Punjab & Haryana High Court orders after the victim's mother alleged the encounter was staged.

**Sources (3):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzM0NQ==); [IAMC.COM](https://IAMC.COM/iamc-weekly-news-roundup-march-24th-2014/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38174802/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-13-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-13-002)

## State v. Haryana Police not stated (Haryana Police personnel; Personal Security Officer to the judge; in service since 2007) (t2-07-010)

**Record:** t2-07-010
**Title:** State v. Haryana Police not stated (Haryana Police personnel; Personal Security Officer to the judge; in service since 2007)
**Court:** Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram (Judge Sudheer Parmar) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Haryana Police not stated (Haryana Police personnel; Personal Security Officer to the judge; in service since 2007)
**Conviction:** 6 February 2020
**Incident date:** 2018-10-13 (2018)
**Place:** Gurugram, Haryana
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 201; Arms Act 1959
**Officers (gated display forms):** not stated (Haryana Police personnel; Personal Security Officer to the judge; in service since 2007), Haryana Police (PSO to Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram)
**Victims:** Gurugram woman, age 38; Gurugram man, age 18
**Sentence:** Death penalty (rarest-of-rare reasoning; subject to High Court confirmation — outcome unknown)

Additional Sessions Judge Sudheer Parmar, Gurugram, on 7 February 2020 (reported 8 February 2020) awarded the death sentence to Haryana Police PSO \[name withheld\] for shooting dead the wife and son of a Gurugram Additional Sessions Judge, in Arcadia market Gurugram on 13 October 2018 following an altercation over car keys. The court relied on the accused's extra-judicial confession and the dying declaration of a Gurugram woman, rejecting the spur-of-the-moment leniency plea given his gross misuse of a security-duty position. Confirmation/appeal posture unknown.

**Sources (4):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-370004.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/death-penalty-awarded-to-police-officer-who-murdered-wife-and-son-of-judge-152483); [indialegallive.com](https://indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/news/x-pso-gets-death-sentence-killing-judges-wife-son/); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/gurugram-court-awards-death-penalty-to-pso-who-shot-dead-judges-wife-son-in-2018-1524224.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-07-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-07-010)

## CBI v. RPF Sub-Inspector (then SI) (t2-13-029)

**Record:** t2-13-029
**Title:** CBI v. RPF Sub-Inspector (then SI)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Panchkula (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. RPF Sub-Inspector (then SI)
**Conviction:** 16 July 2021
**Incident date:** 2016-09-14 (2016)
**Place:** Fatehabad, Haryana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (then SI), RPF Post, Jakhal, Haryana
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 4 years + fine Rs 40,000

The Special Judge, CBI Panchkula sentenced RPF Sub-Inspector to 4 years' RI for demanding Rs 30,000, negotiated to Rs 10,000, to release the complainant and fellow labourers detained at Jakhal RPF post. The CBI trapped him accepting Rs 10,000 on 14.09.2016. RPF is a railway police force; included as police personnel per broad construction.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NDQ5OA==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-029)

## State vs Government Railway Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w2-09-007)

**Record:** t2w2-09-007
**Title:** State vs Government Railway Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Government Railway Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 30 March 2019
**Incident date:** 2008-05-15 (2008)
**Place:** Fatehabad, Haryana
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 323 r/w 34; IPC 304 Part II r/w 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, GRP Police Post Jakhal, Haryana (Government Railway Police); Exemptee Head Constable (EHC No. 423), GRP Police Post Jakhal, Haryana; Exemptee Head Constable (No. 432), GRP Police Post Jakhal, Haryana; Head Constable (No. 240), GRP Police Post Jakhal, Haryana; Head Constable (No. 704), GRP Police Post Jakhal, Haryana; Head Constable (No. 796), GRP Police Post Jakhal, Haryana
**Victims:** Fatehabad man
**Sentence:** 6 months RI + Rs 1,000 fine (IPC 323/34); 5 years RI + Rs 20,000 fine (IPC 304-II/34); concurrent; Section 428 CrPC set-off

Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, on 30 March 2019 convicted Haryana GRP personnel posted at Police Post Jakhal for the May 2008 custodial death of a Fatehabad man, who was beaten with lathis through the night after being booked in a petty FIR and died of head injuries on 20 May 2008. Each convict got 5 years RI plus Rs 20,000 fine under IPC 304-II/34 (with a concurrent 6-month term under 323/34); the court acquitted them under sections 325/149. The Punjab and Haryana High Court (CRA-S-1292-2019 with CRA-S-1362-2019, Justice Sureshwar Thakur) dismissed all appeals on 23 February 2023, holding the death resulted from physical assault by the police officials in transit custody, and ordered convicts on bail to be taken into custody.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40072161/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-09-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-09-007)

## CBI vs Himachal Pradesh Police Inspector General of Police and others (t2-08-001)

**Record:** t2-08-001
**Title:** CBI vs Himachal Pradesh Police Inspector General of Police and others
**Court:** Special CBI Court, Chandigarh (Special Judge Alka Malik) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Himachal Pradesh Police Inspector General of Police and others
**Conviction:** 18 January 2025
**Incident date:** 2017-07-18 (2017)
**Place:** Shimla, Himachal Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302 (murder); IPC 330 (torture to extract confession); IPC 348; IPC 218; IPC 195, 196 (fabrication of false evidence); IPC 201 (destruction of evidence); IPC 120B (criminal conspiracy)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector General of Police, Himachal Pradesh Police (SIT chief, Kotkhai case); Deputy Superintendent of Police, Theog, Shimla; Sub-Inspector, Himachal Pradesh Police; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Himachal Pradesh Police; Honorary Head Constable, Himachal Pradesh Police; Honorary Head Constable, Himachal Pradesh Police; Head Constable, Himachal Pradesh Police; Constable, Himachal Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Shimla man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment + Rs 1,00,000 fine each (sentenced 27 January 2025); co-accused SP D.W. Negi acquitted

The Special CBI Court at Chandigarh convicted eight Himachal Pradesh police personnel, headed by then-IG \[name withheld\], for the custodial torture and murder of \[name withheld\], an accused in the 2017 Kotkhai Gudiya rape-murder case. The court found \[name withheld\] died of custodial beatings (20+ injury marks) and that officers fabricated evidence blaming a co-accused. All eight were sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs 1 lakh fine each on 27 January 2025; SP D.W. Negi was acquitted for lack of evidence. The Supreme Court transferred the trial from Shimla to the Chandigarh CBI court in 2019.

**Sources (12):** [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/india-news-cbi-court-sentences-himachal-igp-seven-other-cops-to-life-imprisonment-in-custodial-death-case-6597174.html); [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/Njc2Ng==); [himachalscape.com](https://himachalscape.com/cbi-court-convicts-himachal-igp-and-seven-others-in-kotkhai-custodial-death-case/); [bhaskarenglish.in](https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/amp/local/himachal/news/senior-himachal-police-officers-get-life-term-for-custodial-murder-in-gudiya-case-134365934.html); [bhaskarenglish.in](https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/local/himachal/news/senior-himachal-police-officers-get-life-term-for-custodial-murder-in-gudiya-case-134365934.html); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3241259-top-himachal-pradesh-police-officers-sentenced-to-life-in-high-profile-custodial-death-case); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3241723-cbi-court-convicts-top-policemen-in-custodial-death-case); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3241726-cbi-court-sentences-top-himachal-cops-to-life-in-custody-death-scandal); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3740610-suspended-sentences-raise-questions-in-custodial-death-case); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/india-news-cbi-court-convicts-himachal-ig-7-other-cops-in-custodial-death-case-6575613.html); [thehindu.com](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/himachal-pradesh/himachal-pradesh-custodial-death-case-hc-suspends-jail-term-of-former-igp-zaidi/article70433203.ece); [ythisnews.com](https://ythisnews.com/life-sentence-for-himachal-ig-seven-cops-for-custodial-death-in-gangrape-murder-case/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-08-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-08-001)

## State v. Mandi Police Constable (No. 265) (t2w3-37-001)

**Record:** t2w3-37-001
**Title:** State v. Mandi Police Constable (No. 265)
**Court:** Special Judge, Mandi (NDPS Court) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Mandi Police Constable (No. 265)
**Conviction:** 8 November 2024
**Incident date:** 2016-02-25 (2016)
**Place:** Mandi, Himachal Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** NDPS Act 1985 s.20
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (No. 265), 4th Indian Reserve Battalion, Jangalberi (posted BSL Project Security, Sunder Nagar)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years imprisonment + Rs.25,000 fine

Per the HP High Court writ judgment (CWP 6783/2026 with CWP 2077/2026, 2026:HHC:31438, decided 29.07.2026), Constable was convicted by the Special Judge, Mandi on 08.11.2024 under Section 20 NDPS Act in FIR 59/2016 (PS Balh; 1003 grams charas recovered) and sentenced to three years' imprisonment with Rs.25,000 fine. His criminal appeal (CrA 659/2024) is pending with only the sentence suspended; he was dismissed from service and his writ challenge failed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27966799/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-37-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-37-001)

## State v. Kullu Police Constable (No. 710) (t2w3-37-002)

**Record:** t2w3-37-002
**Title:** State v. Kullu Police Constable (No. 710)
**Court:** Special Judge-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Kullu Police Constable (No. 710)
**Conviction:** 26 December 2023
**Incident date:** 2019-11-18 (2019)
**Place:** Kullu, Himachal Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** NDPS Act 1985 ss.21/25/29
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (No. 710), District Shimla police (appointed 2015 under sports quota)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** not stated in available record

Per the HP High Court writ judgment (CWP 2077/2026 with CWP 6783/2026, 2026:HHC:31438, decided 29.07.2026), Constable (No. 710, Shimla) was convicted on 26.12.2023 by Special Judge-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr in FIR 84/2019 (PS Bhuntar) under the NDPS Act. The sentence quantum is not stated in the writ record. His appeal (CrA 15/2024) is pending with sentence suspended since 01.01.2024; the conviction is unstayed.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/22/gaurav-verma-695668.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/himachal-pradesh-high-court/hp-high-court-upholds-dismissal-police-constables-convicted-ndps-act-547050)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-37-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-37-002)

## State vs J&K Police Constable (t2w4-19-004)

**Record:** t2w4-19-004
**Title:** State vs J&K Police Constable
**Court:** Designated Court for Jammu Province under POTA (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs J&K Police Constable
**Conviction:** 19 July 2010
**Incident date:** 2001-09-29 (2001)
**Place:** Reasi, Jammu and Kashmir
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** POTA s.3(4)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, J&K Police, District Udhampur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years imprisonment (sentence order 20.07.2010)

The Designated Court for Jammu Province under POTA convicted J&K Police Constable (District Udhampur) on 19.07.2010 (sentence order 20.07.2010) under s.3(4) of POTA for harbouring militants, and sentenced him to 3 years imprisonment plus Rs.1,000 fine; the court relied on his confession recorded before the SSP Poonch. A Division Bench of the J&K&L High Court upheld the conviction on 31.12.2024 (CRA 17/2010).

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113743568/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jammu-kashmir/jammu-and-kashmir-high-court-confession-must-be-of-sterling-value-corroborated-court-upholds-conviction-under-pota-282527)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-19-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-19-004)

## CBI v. BSF DIG (then DIG) (t2-13-028)

**Record:** t2-13-028
**Title:** CBI v. BSF DIG (then DIG)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Chandigarh (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. BSF DIG (then DIG)
**Conviction:** 6 June 2018
**Incident date:** 2006-01-01 (2006)
**Place:** Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** DIG (then DIG), Border Security Force (BSF); DSP (then DSP, CID), J&K Police, CID
**Victims:** Srinagar woman; Srinagar woman; Srinagar woman; Srinagar woman
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 10 years each + fine (Rs 1,00,000 each for the two officers; Rs 50,000 each for three private convicts), fines to the victim as compensation

The Special Judge, CBI Chandigarh sentenced BSF DIG and J&K CID DSP \[name a Srinagar woman\] with three private men to 10 years' RI each for sexually exploiting four girls including a minor at Srinagar hotels and a residence in the 2006 Srinagar sex scandal. The CBI took over the Shaheed Gunj FIR in May 2006 after an obscene CD surfaced. The court directed fines to the victim for loss of reputation, dignity, education and mental harassment. Victim identities a Srinagar woman

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjM1Ng==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Unknown

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-028)

## State vs J&K Police Special Police Officer (SPO) and others (t2w4-20-002)

**Record:** t2w4-20-002
**Title:** State vs J&K Police Special Police Officer (SPO) and others
**Court:** Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gool (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** State vs J&K Police Special Police Officer (SPO) and others
**Conviction:** 6 June 2018
**Incident date:** 2013-01-01 (2013)
**Place:** Ramban, Jammu and Kashmir
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** RPC 336; RPC 147; RPC 427
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Police Officer (SPO), J&K Police, District Ramban
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Convicted; released on probation (benefit of probation extended by the Magistrate; no custodial term)

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gool convicted SPO \[name withheld\] of District Ramban (with co-accused) in FIR No.58/2013 under RPC ss.336, 147 and 427 vide judgment dated 06.06.2018, extending the benefit of probation to all convicts. Following the conviction he was disengaged from the SPO rolls; the High Court of J&K and Ladakh (Justice Sanjay Dhar, 2022) upheld the disengagement, holding a person convicted of a criminal charge is not fit to serve in police even as an SPO. No criminal appeal against the conviction is stated.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/jkl-hc-police-service-437946.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/jkl-high-court-police-official-convicted-person-termination-of-service-jk-police-act-210975)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-20-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-20-002)

## Sessions Trial No. 551/93 (Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 162/90; G.R. No. 2777/90) — State vs nine police personnel of Jagannathpur Police Station (t2w2-02-002)

**Record:** t2w2-02-002
**Title:** Sessions Trial No. 551/93 (Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 162/90; G.R. No. 2777/90) — State vs nine police personnel of Jagannathpur Police Station
**Court:** Second Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (Sessions Trial No. 551/93) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Trial No. 551/93 (Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 162/90; G.R. No. 2777/90) — State vs nine police personnel of Jagannathpur Police Station
**Conviction:** 27 March 1996
**Incident date:** 1990-07-27 (1990)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 r/w 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** ranks not stated, Jagannathpur Police Station, Ranchi (then Bihar, now Jharkhand)
**Victims:** Ranchi man; Ranchi man; Ranchi man
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each + fine of Rs 20,000 each (2 years simple imprisonment in default of fine)

The Second Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, by judgment dated 27 March 1996 (sentence 29 March 1996) convicted all nine accused police personnel of Jagannathpur Police Station in Sessions Trial No. 551/93, holding that on 27 July 1990 they caught a Ranchi man @ a Ranchi man, \[name withheld\] @ \[name withheld\] and a Ranchi man near Hesag wine bhatti, assaulted them with iron rods, dantas and rifle butts, transported them on the thana jeep and assaulted them again at Birsa Chowk, causing their deaths. Each convict was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with Rs 20,000 fine. The Supreme Court (W.P.(Crl.) 621/1992, Pratul Kumar Sinha) had earlier ordered the arrests and Rs 25,000 ex-gratia per family; as of the 2003 compensation judgment the \[name withheld\] could not say whether any appeal was filed.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/520221/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122009310/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-02-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-02-002)

## Special Case No. 0004 of 1990 (Patna Vigilance P.S. Case No. 7 of 1990); State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors. (Crl.A. Nos. 36 & 48 of 2002) (t2w3-36-001)

**Record:** t2w3-36-001
**Title:** Special Case No. 0004 of 1990 (Patna Vigilance P.S. Case No. 7 of 1990); State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors. (Crl.A. Nos. 36 & 48 of 2002)
**Court:** Court of 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (Special Case No. 0004 of 1990) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Special Case No. 0004 of 1990 (Patna Vigilance P.S. Case No. 7 of 1990); State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors. (Crl.A. Nos. 36 & 48 of 2002)
**Conviction:** 19 January 2002
**Incident date:** 1990-03-14 (1990)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Lapung Police Station, Ranchi
**Victims:** Ranchi man
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment (under each of ss.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) and 12; sentences concurrent)

Per the Jharkhand High Court judgment of 02-09-2009, ASI of Lapung Police Station, Ranchi was convicted by the 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (Special Case No. 0004 of 1990) for demanding and accepting bribe from complainant \[name withheld\] — Rs.15,000 demanded on 14-03-1990 to release a detained relative and hush up a case, settled at Rs.4,000, with Rs.700 taken during verification and Rs.3,300 recovered in the 24-03-1990 vigilance trap. The trial court imposed one year RI (order dated 19-01-2002). The High Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence, directing the trial court to issue a warrant for him to serve the sentence; co-accused \[name withheld\] was acquitted and OC Tarni Prasad died during trial.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1178132/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/814802/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-36-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-36-001)

## State (Vigilance) v. West Singhbhum Police Inspector of Police (t2w4-17-001)

**Record:** t2w4-17-001
**Title:** State (Vigilance) v. West Singhbhum Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (Vigilance) v. West Singhbhum Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 20 September 2003
**Incident date:** 1991-02-26 (1991)
**Place:** West Singhbhum, Jharkhand
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7 r/w s.13(2) (charge; sentence term not stated in appellate judgment)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Chakradharpur Police Station, West Singhbhum (police station near whose premises his medicine-shop conduit sat, per judgment)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** convicted by Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi; sentence term not stated in the 2022 appellate judgment (charge framed u/s 7 r/w 13(2) PC Act)

The Jharkhand High Court records that \[name withheld\], a police inspector posted at Chakradharpur, demanded Rs.5,000 bribe from a P.H.\[name withheld\] (after earlier taking Rs.10,000), was caught in a Vigilance trap on 26.02.1991, and was convicted by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi on 20.09.2003 in Special Case No.7 of 1991. His separate appeal (Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1421 of 2003) was still pending when the co-convicts' appeal was allowed in 2022; his conviction therefore stands as the trial court's finding.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/24479752/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?caseId=902202757000&title=shambhu-nath-pati-vs-state-of-jharkhand)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-17-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-17-001)

## CBI vs Bihar Police Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Doranda Police Station, Ranchi (former) (t2w4-21-001)

**Record:** t2w4-21-001
**Title:** CBI vs Bihar Police Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Doranda Police Station, Ranchi (former)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Bihar Police Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Doranda Police Station, Ranchi (former)
**Conviction:** 27 December 2005
**Incident date:** 1998-10-21 (1998)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Doranda Police Station, Ranchi (former), Bihar Police (now Jharkhand Police), Doranda PS, Ranchi
**Victims:** Ranchi woman, age 40
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment (s.302) + 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment (s.201), concurrent

The CBI press release dated 27.12.2005 states that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ranchi awarded life imprisonment to former Inspector of Police \[name withheld\], then Officer-in-Charge of Doranda Police Station, Ranchi, for murdering school teacher a Ranchi woman, whose burning body with firearm injuries was found near Ranchi on 22.10.1998. The release records that the case, first closed by the CID on a closure report, was transferred to the CBI on 23.04.2001 at the Jharkhand government's request after an NHRC inquiry on the mother's protest petition, and that Prasad, lodged in Ranchi jail for two and a half years, was also given two years RI under s.201 IPC with a Rs.5,000 fine, all sentences concurrent.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20070303100325id_/http://cbi.nic.in/PressReleases/PRelease2005/p27_1Dec05.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-21-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-21-001)

## CBI v. CRPF Assistant Commandant (Quarter Master / Motor Transport Officer) (t2w3-24-005)

**Record:** t2w3-24-005
**Title:** CBI v. CRPF Assistant Commandant (Quarter Master / Motor Transport Officer)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ranchi (Jharkhand) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. CRPF Assistant Commandant (Quarter Master / Motor Transport Officer)
**Conviction:** 8 March 2013
**Incident date:** 2003-08-16 (2003)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Commandant (Quarter Master / Motor Transport Officer), Signal Group Centre, CRPF, Dhurwa, Ranchi
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ranchi convicted CRPF Assistant \[name withheld\] (Quarter Master/Motor Transport Officer, Signal Group Centre, Dhurwa) in a bribery case and sentenced him to two years RI with Rs.10,000 fine. The release states he demanded and accepted Rs.5,000 from the complainant for allotting a 10x12 ft plot in the SGC CRPF campus for running an egg shop; CBI registered the case on 16.08.2003 and chargesheeted him in the Designated Court Ranchi on 30.04.2004.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzY0OA==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-005)

## CBI vs Ranchi Police IPS; then Executive Director (Vigilance) (t2w4-24-007)

**Record:** t2w4-24-007
**Title:** CBI vs Ranchi Police IPS; then Executive Director (Vigilance)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Ranchi Police IPS; then Executive Director (Vigilance)
**Conviction:** 27 September 2017
**Incident date:** 1992-01-01 (1992)
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** IPS; then Executive Director (Vigilance), Central Coalfields Ltd (CCL), Ranchi
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The Special Judge, CBI Cases, Ranchi, on 27 September 2017 convicted Shri Hemchand, IPS, then Executive Director (Vigilance), CCL Ranchi, sentencing him to three years Rigorous Imprisonment with a Rs 10,000 fine in a bribery case. CBI registered the case on 30.08.1992 alleging demand of Rs 25,000 through the then Senior Under Manager, CCL Kargil Area, to let the complainant continue contract work; chargesheet followed on 06.03.1998 and the co-accused \[name withheld\] died during trial. The trial court found \[name withheld\] guilty and convicted him.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjQ4MA==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-24-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-24-007)

## Sessions Trial No. 299 of 2010 (CBI case; complaint of custodial torture/death of Bokaro Man) — State (CBI) vs \[name withheld\] & \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] (t2w2-02-001)

**Record:** t2w2-02-001
**Title:** Sessions Trial No. 299 of 2010 (CBI case; complaint of custodial torture/death of Bokaro Man) — State (CBI) vs \[name withheld\] & \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Court of Session, Bokaro (Sessions Trial No. 299 of 2010) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Trial No. 299 of 2010 (CBI case; complaint of custodial torture/death of Bokaro Man) — State (CBI) vs \[name withheld\] & \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\]
**Conviction:** 10 May 2019
**Incident date:** 2005-12-22 (2005)
**Place:** Bokaro, Jharkhand
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 323; IPC 343
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Bokaro police (Sector-XII police station case), Jharkhand Police; Assistant Sub-Inspector (investigating officer of the case), Bokaro police (Sector-XII police station case), Jharkhand Police
**Victims:** Bokaro man
**Sentence:** Not stated in opened sources; convicted under Sections 323, 343 and 120B IPC (acquitted under Section 304 IPC)

The Court of Session (Sessions Trial No. 299 of 2010) on 10 May 2019 convicted Sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector \[name withheld\] for the illegal detention (22–28 December 2005) and assault of tribal youth a Bokaro man, who died after admission to Bokaro General Hospital, holding them guilty under IPC Sections 323, 343 and 120B while acquitting them of Section 304. The case was investigated by the CBI on Jharkhand High Court direction (W.P.(PIL) No. 1654 of 2006) after a complaint of third-degree torture, with cognizance taken on protest petition on 9 February 2009. An appeal against the 10 May 2019 judgment was pending when the High Court decided the compensation writ on 13 December 2019; sentence quantum and exact sessions division were not stated in the opened sources.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1029798/bindita-bindikta-devi-appellant-hash-state-of-jharkhand-and-ors-respondent/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/469476/shri-phulchand-tirkey-appellant-hash-the-central-bureau-of-investigation-smt-sandhya-rani-mehta-/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-02-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-02-001)

## Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2020; State vs \[name withheld\] (Death Reference No. 4 of 2023 with Crl. Appeal (DB) No. 588 of 2023) (t2w3-36-002)

**Record:** t2w3-36-002
**Title:** Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2020; State vs \[name withheld\] (Death Reference No. 4 of 2023 with Crl. Appeal (DB) No. 588 of 2023)
**Court:** District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh (Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2020) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2020; State vs \[name withheld\] (Death Reference No. 4 of 2023 with Crl. Appeal (DB) No. 588 of 2023)
**Conviction:** 19 September 2024
**Incident date:** 2019-08-17 (2019)
**Place:** Ramgarh, Jharkhand
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Railway Protection Force (RPF) Post, Barkakana, Ramgarh
**Victims:** Ramgarh man; Ramgarh woman; Ramgarh woman; Ramgarh resident; Ramgarh woman
**Sentence:** Trial (16-03-2023): death sentence. On appeal (19-09-2024): death commuted to 25 years RI without remission (s.302) plus 10 years RI (s.307), concurrent; conviction under s.27 Arms Act set aside

Per the Jharkhand High Court judgment of 19-09-2024, RPF Constable of RPF Post Barkakana was convicted by the District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh (Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2020, judgment 13-03-2023) for opening indiscriminate fire with his service pistol on his neighbour-milk supplier's family at about 8 p.m. on 17-08-2019 when asked to pay milk dues, killing the informant's father, mother and \[name withheld\] sister and critically injuring the informant and another sister. The trial court imposed the death sentence (order 16-03-2023). The High Court upheld the ss.302/307 IPC convictions but, finding the offence a spur-of-the-moment act without preplanning, commuted death to 25 years RI without remission (plus 10 years RI for s.307, concurrent) and set aside the s.27 Arms Act conviction since a service pistol was used.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/display-1-563724.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/jharkhand-high-court/jharkhand-high-court-firing-unlicensed-prohibited-arms-invites-conviction-under-section-27-arms-act-not-service-pistol-271366)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-36-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-36-002)

## Crime No.7/1999 / Spl. Case No.5/2000 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.8) (t2w3-31-003)

**Record:** t2w3-31-003
**Title:** Crime No.7/1999 / Spl. Case No.5/2000 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.8)
**Court:** Special Judge (Lokayukta), Belgaum (as listed in AAR 2005-06) (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.7/1999 / Spl. Case No.5/2000 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.8)
**Conviction:** 23 April 2005
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Vijayapura, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (HC No.1298), Basavana Bagewadi Police Station, Bijapur (Vijayapura) district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** SI 2 years (s.7); SI 2 years (s.13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta AAR 2005-06 records that Head Constable (HC No.1298, Basavana Bagewadi PS, Bijapur district) was convicted by judgment dated 23.04.2005 in Spl. Case No.5/2000 (Crime No.7/1999) and sentenced to two years' simple imprisonment with fines under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act 1988.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-31-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-31-003)

## Crime No.13/2002 / Spl. Case No.105/2003 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.20) (t2w3-31-005)

**Record:** t2w3-31-005
**Title:** Crime No.13/2002 / Spl. Case No.105/2003 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.20)
**Court:** Special Judge, Bengaluru City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.13/2002 / Spl. Case No.105/2003 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.20)
**Conviction:** 2 June 2005
**Incident date:** 2002-04-30 (2002)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), Halasoor Gate Traffic Intelligence Squad, S.R. Nagar, Bengaluru
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (s.7); RI 2 years (s.13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta AAR 2005-06 records that PSI (Halasoor Gate Traffic Intelligence Squad, S.\[name withheld\], Bengaluru) was convicted by the Special Judge, Bengaluru City by judgment dated 02.06.2005 in Spl. Case No.105/2003 (Crime No.13/2002) and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under s.7 and two years' rigorous imprisonment under s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act 1988, with fines.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-31-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-31-005)

## Crime No.32/2002 / Spl. Case No.155/2004 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.27, accused No.1) (t2w3-31-006)

**Record:** t2w3-31-006
**Title:** Crime No.32/2002 / Spl. Case No.155/2004 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.27, accused No.1)
**Court:** Special Judge, Bengaluru City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.32/2002 / Spl. Case No.155/2004 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.27, accused No.1)
**Conviction:** 3 September 2005
**Incident date:** 2002-09-07 (2002)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector (PSI, accused No.1), Wilson Garden Police Station, Bengaluru
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** SI 1 year (s.7); SI 2 years (s.13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta AAR 2005-06 records that PSI (Wilson Garden PS, Bengaluru, accused No.1 in Crime No.32/2002 / Spl. Case No.155/2004) was convicted with co-accused PC by the Special Judge, Bengaluru City by judgment dated 03.09.2005, and sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment under s.7 and two years' simple imprisonment with fines under s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act 1988.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-31-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-31-006)

## Crime No.32/2002 / Spl. Case No.155/2004 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.27, accused No.2) (t2w3-31-007)

**Record:** t2w3-31-007
**Title:** Crime No.32/2002 / Spl. Case No.155/2004 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.27, accused No.2)
**Court:** Special Judge, Bengaluru City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.32/2002 / Spl. Case No.155/2004 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.27, accused No.2)
**Conviction:** 3 September 2005
**Incident date:** 2002-09-07 (2002)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (PC, accused No.2), Wilson Garden Police Station, Bengaluru
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** SI 6 months (s.7); SI 1 year (s.13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta AAR 2005-06 records that Police Constable (Wilson Garden PS, Bengaluru, accused No.2 in Crime No.32/2002 / Spl. Case No.155/2004) was convicted with co-accused PSI by the Special Judge, Bengaluru City by judgment dated 03.09.2005, and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment under s.7 and one year's simple imprisonment with fines under s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act 1988.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-31-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-31-007)

## Crime No.11/1996 / Spl. Case No.340/2002 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.32) (t2w3-31-008)

**Record:** t2w3-31-008
**Title:** Crime No.11/1996 / Spl. Case No.340/2002 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.32)
**Court:** Special Judge, Bengaluru City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.11/1996 / Spl. Case No.340/2002 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.32)
**Conviction:** 12 December 2005
**Incident date:** 1996-05-18 (1996)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI), Mahalaxmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** SI 6 months (s.7); SI 1 year (s.13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta AAR 2005-06 records that ASI (Mahalaxmi Layout PS, Bengaluru) was convicted by the Special Judge, Bengaluru City by judgment dated 12.12.2005 in Spl. Case No.340/2002 (Crime No.11/1996) and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment under s.7 and one year's simple imprisonment with fines under s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act 1988.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-31-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-31-008)

## Crime No.1/2000 / Spl. Case No.13/2000 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.16) (t2w3-31-004)

**Record:** t2w3-31-004
**Title:** Crime No.1/2000 / Spl. Case No.13/2000 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.16)
**Court:** Special Judge (Lokayukta), Bijapur (as listed in AAR 2005-06) (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2000 / Spl. Case No.13/2000 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.16)
**Conviction:** 16 December 2005
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Vijayapura, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Civil Head Constable (C.H.C. No.1580), Basavana Bagewadi (B-Bhagevadi) Police Station, Bijapur (Vijayapura) district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** SI for '3 year' (as printed in AAR; s.7)

The Karnataka Lokayukta AAR 2005-06 records that Civil Head Constable (CHC No.1580, Basavana Bagewadi PS) was convicted by judgment dated 16.12.2005 in Spl. Case No.13/2000 (Crime No.1/2000) under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act 1988, with a Rs.5,000 fine. The printed custodial term reads 'SI for 3 year', reproduced verbatim.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-31-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-31-004)

## Crime No.5/1998 / Spl. Case No.48/2000 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.42) (t2w3-31-010)

**Record:** t2w3-31-010
**Title:** Crime No.5/1998 / Spl. Case No.48/2000 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.42)
**Court:** Special Judge, Bengaluru (Lokayukta jurisdiction; court not named in summary table) (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.5/1998 / Spl. Case No.48/2000 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.42)
**Conviction:** 2006
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), Viveknagar Police Station, Bengaluru
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** SI 1 year (s.7); RI 2 years (s.13, as printed)

The Karnataka Lokayukta AAR 2005-06 (summary conviction table, Sl.No.42) records that PSI (Viveknagar PS, Bengaluru) was convicted in Spl. Case No.48/2000 (Crime No.5/1998) and sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment with a Rs.10,000 fine under s.7 and two years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs.25,000 fine on the s.13 count of the PC Act 1988. The summary table states no judgment date or court name; the conviction is reported in the 2005-06 report year.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-31-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-31-010)

## Crime No.21/1999 / Spl. Case No.16/2003 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.36) (t2w3-31-009)

**Record:** t2w3-31-009
**Title:** Crime No.21/1999 / Spl. Case No.16/2003 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.36)
**Court:** Special Judge, Bengaluru City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.21/1999 / Spl. Case No.16/2003 (AAR 2005-06 Sl.No.36)
**Conviction:** 16 February 2006
**Incident date:** 1999-07-07 (1999)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Vivek Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** SI 1 year (s.7)

The Karnataka Lokayukta AAR 2005-06 records that Head Constable (Vivek Nagar PS, Bengaluru) was convicted by the Special Judge, Bengaluru City by judgment dated 16.02.2006 in Spl. Case No.16/2003 (Crime No.21/1999, dated 07.07.1999) and sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment with a Rs.5,000 fine under s.7 of the PC Act 1988.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-31-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-31-009)

## Hassan Lokayukta PS Crime No.7/1993 / Special Case No.17/1994 (AAR 2006-07) (t2w3-31-011)

**Record:** t2w3-31-011
**Title:** Hassan Lokayukta PS Crime No.7/1993 / Special Case No.17/1994 (AAR 2006-07)
**Court:** Special Judge, Hassan (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Hassan Lokayukta PS Crime No.7/1993 / Special Case No.17/1994 (AAR 2006-07)
**Conviction:** 2007
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Hassan, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 (sections not stated in AAR 2006-07 narrative — remove s.7 / s.13(1)(d) unless corroborated)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI), Konanur Police Station, Hassan district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** RI 3 months

The Karnataka Lokayukta AAR 2006-07 records that ASI (Konanur PS, Hassan district), trapped in Hassan Lokayukta PS Crime No.7/1993 and prosecuted in Special Case No.17/1994 before the Special Judge, Hassan, was convicted and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs.20,000 fine. The narrative states no judgment date; the conviction is reported in the 2006-07 report year.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2006-07.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-31-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-31-011)

## Mysore Lokayukta PS Crime No.5/1998 / Spl. Case No.115/1998 (AAR 2008-09 Sl.No.12) (t2w3-31-013)

**Record:** t2w3-31-013
**Title:** Mysore Lokayukta PS Crime No.5/1998 / Spl. Case No.115/1998 (AAR 2008-09 Sl.No.12)
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysuru (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Mysore Lokayukta PS Crime No.5/1998 / Spl. Case No.115/1998 (AAR 2008-09 Sl.No.12)
**Conviction:** 14 August 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysuru, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), Rural Police Station, Mysuru
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** RI 6 months (s.7); RI 1 year (s.13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta AAR 2008-09 records that PSI (Rural Police Station, Mysuru), trapped in Mysore Lokayukta PS Crime No.5/1998 and charge-sheeted in Spl. Case No.115/1998, was convicted by the Special Judge, Mysuru by judgment dated 14.08.2008 and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under s.7 and one year's rigorous imprisonment with fines under s.13(1)(d) of the PC Act 1988.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2008-09.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-31-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-31-013)

## Kolar Lokayukta PS Crime No.11/2006 / Spl. Case No.1/2007 (AAR 2008-09 Sl.No.9) (t2w3-31-012)

**Record:** t2w3-31-012
**Title:** Kolar Lokayukta PS Crime No.11/2006 / Spl. Case No.1/2007 (AAR 2008-09 Sl.No.9)
**Court:** Special Judge, Kolar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Kolar Lokayukta PS Crime No.11/2006 / Spl. Case No.1/2007 (AAR 2008-09 Sl.No.9)
**Conviction:** 5 September 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kolar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), Kolar Police Station, Kolar
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Imprisonment 2 years

The Karnataka Lokayukta AAR 2008-09 records that PSI (Kolar Police Station, Kolar), trapped in Kolar Lokayukta PS Crime No.11/2006 and charge-sheeted in Spl. Case No.1/2007, was convicted by the Special Judge, Kolar by judgment dated 05.09.2008 and sentenced to two years' imprisonment with a Rs.10,000 fine under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act 1988.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2008-09.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-31-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-31-012)

## CBI fake stamp paper case v. Bangalore City Police Retired Assistant Commissioner of Police (Inspector at time of offence) (t2w4-22-003)

**Record:** t2w4-22-003
**Title:** CBI fake stamp paper case v. Bangalore City Police Retired Assistant Commissioner of Police (Inspector at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Court for trial of fake stamp paper cases, Karnataka, Bangalore (CBI-prosecuted case) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI fake stamp paper case v. Bangalore City Police Retired Assistant Commissioner of Police (Inspector at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 15 April 2009
**Incident date:** 1997-01-01 (1997)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Retired Assistant Commissioner of Police (Inspector at time of offence), Bangalore City Police (Inspector, Kalasipalyam market police station in 1997)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment (sentenced 2009-04-17; granted bail after having undergone nearly 22 months)

The CBI's official press-release index records (release dated 20 April 2009) that 'Abdul Kareem Telgi, one police official and seven others' were 'sentenced \[to\] rigorous imprisonment with hefty fines in \[the\] Fake Stamp Paper case'. Contemporaneous reports identify the police official as \[name withheld\], retired Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bangalore (Inspector of Kalasipalyam market police station in 1997, accused of abetting the stamp-paper racket and destroying evidence / filing a weak case to help Telgi's brother). The special court for fake stamp paper cases in Karnataka convicted Telgi, \[name withheld\] and six others on 15 April 2009; on 17 April 2009 Telgi got 7 years RI and \[name withheld\] 3 years RI, with bail granted to Singh as he had already undergone nearly 22 months. No appeal outcome is known.

**Sources (4):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20090504101130id_/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pressrelease.php); [s2sorigineconomictimes.timesofindia.co.in](https://s2sorigineconomictimes.timesofindia.co.in/news/politics-and-nation/telgi-sangram-and-six-others-convicted/articleshow/4406099.cms); [shivann.com](https://shivann.com/india/telgi-gets-7year-jail-term-in-fake-stamp-paper-case-4644); [topnews.in](https://topnews.in/node/152774)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-22-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-22-003)

## CBI case: Abdul Kareem Telgi, one police official and seven others sentenced (fake stamp paper case; CBI PR dated 20.04.2009) (t2w3-23-005)

**Record:** t2w3-23-005
**Title:** CBI case: Abdul Kareem Telgi, one police official and seven others sentenced (fake stamp paper case; CBI PR dated 20.04.2009)
**Court:** CBI Special Sessions Court, Bangalore (special court constituted for fake stamp paper cases in Karnataka) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI case: Abdul Kareem Telgi, one police official and seven others sentenced (fake stamp paper case; CBI PR dated 20.04.2009)
**Conviction:** 17 April 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bengaluru, Karnataka
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC (various sections; convicted under IPC per ANI report; exact sections not stated in available sources)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Not stated, Police (one police official among nine sentenced)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rigorous Imprisonment (term not stated in index entry)

The official CBI press-release index (archived) lists a release dated 20.04.2009 titled 'Abdul Kareem Telgi, one police official and seven others sentenced rigorous imprisonment with hefty fines in Fake Stamp Paper case'. The index entry does not name the police official, the convicting court, the case number, the sentence terms, or the sections. The linked full press-release page was not captured by the web archive and no corroborating report could be verified in-session.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20090604090421id_/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pressrelease.php); [topnews.in](https://topnews.in/node/152774 (ANI report, 17 April 2009))
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-23-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-23-005)

## Chitradurga Lokayukta PS Crime No.1/2008 (Trap No.3/2007) (AAR 2010-11 Sl.No.45) (t2w3-31-014)

**Record:** t2w3-31-014
**Title:** Chitradurga Lokayukta PS Crime No.1/2008 (Trap No.3/2007) (AAR 2010-11 Sl.No.45)
**Court:** Special Judge, Chitradurga (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Chitradurga Lokayukta PS Crime No.1/2008 (Trap No.3/2007) (AAR 2010-11 Sl.No.45)
**Conviction:** 24 December 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chitradurga, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Hosadurga Circle, Chitradurga district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** SI 3 years (s.7); SI 5 years (s.13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta AAR 2010-11 records that Police Inspector (Hosadurga Circle, Chitradurga district), trapped accepting a Rs.1,00,000 bribe (Crime No.1/2008, Trap No.3/2007), was convicted by the Special Judge, Chitradurga by judgment dated 24.12.2010 and sentenced to three years' simple imprisonment under s.7 and five years' simple imprisonment with fines totalling Rs.1,50,000 under s.13(1)(d) of the PC Act 1988. This resolves the prior-wave lead whose police status was unverified.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-31-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-31-014)

## State vs District Armed Reserve Police Police Constable (District Armed Reserve, Chitradurga; dismissed from service; formerly CRPF) (t2w4-07-001)

**Record:** t2w4-07-001
**Title:** State vs District Armed Reserve Police Police Constable (District Armed Reserve, Chitradurga; dismissed from service; formerly CRPF)
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VII, Bangalore City (Judge K. Sukanya) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs District Armed Reserve Police Police Constable (District Armed Reserve, Chitradurga; dismissed from service; formerly CRPF)
**Conviction:** 26 October 2006
**Incident date:** 1998-02-28 (1998)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 376; IPC 392
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (District Armed Reserve, Chitradurga; dismissed from service; formerly CRPF), District Armed Reserve Police, Chitradurga, Karnataka Police
**Victims:** Bengaluru Urban woman
**Sentence:** Death sentence under s.302 IPC; 10 years rigorous imprisonment under s.392 IPC; 7 years rigorous imprisonment under s.376 IPC

The Supreme Court's 1 February 2011 judgment records that the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VII, Bangalore City convicted police constable in S.C. No.725/1999 on 26 October 2006 for the 28 February 1998 rape, robbery and murder of an adult woman at Dasarahalli, Bengaluru, sentencing him to death under s.302 IPC with further 7- and 10-year terms. The Court notes the Karnataka High Court had rejected his appeal and confirmed the death sentence (Crl.R.C. No.3/2006 and Crl.A. No.2408/2006), and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence. His police status (DAR constable, Chitradurga; ex-CRPF) is corroborated by the \[name withheld\]'s own submission reported by LiveLaw and contemporaneous press; the death sentence was later commuted to 30 years without remission by the Supreme Court in 2022.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93179628/); [en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umesh_Reddy); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-ruling-parole-application-life-imprisonment-convict-ba-umesh-reddy-250726); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-death-sentence-solitary-confinement-b-a-umesh-vs-union-of-india-2022-livelaw-sc-907-213290)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-07-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-07-001)

## Bidar Lokayukta PS Crime No.6/2006 / Spl. Case No.5/2007 (AAR 2011-12 Sl.No.49) (t2w3-31-015)

**Record:** t2w3-31-015
**Title:** Bidar Lokayukta PS Crime No.6/2006 / Spl. Case No.5/2007 (AAR 2011-12 Sl.No.49)
**Court:** Special Judge, Bidar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Bidar Lokayukta PS Crime No.6/2006 / Spl. Case No.5/2007 (AAR 2011-12 Sl.No.49)
**Conviction:** 30 November 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bidar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Civil Police Constable, Gandi Ganj (Gandhi Gunj) Police Station, Bidar
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** SI 1 year (s.7); SI 2 years (s.13)

The Karnataka Lokayukta AAR 2011-12 records that Civil Police Constable (Gandi Ganj Police Station, Bidar), trapped accepting a Rs.500 bribe for issuing an NOC to keep a cracker shop (Crime No.6/2006, Spl. Case No.5/2007), was convicted by the Special Judge, Bidar by judgment dated 30.11.2011 and sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment under s.7 and two years' simple imprisonment with fines under s.13 of the PC Act 1988.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-31-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-31-015)

## State by Lokayukta Police vs Belagavi Police Police Constable, B.No.507 (t2w2-05-015)

**Record:** t2w2-05-015
**Title:** State by Lokayukta Police vs Belagavi Police Police Constable, B.No.507
**Court:** Special Judge (IV Additional Sessions Judge), Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** State by Lokayukta Police vs Belagavi Police Police Constable, B.No.507
**Conviction:** 26 November 2011
**Incident date:** 2007-05-28 (2007)
**Place:** Belagavi, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, B.No.507, Hukkeri Police Station (later Ghataprabha Police Station, Gokak taluk), Belagavi
**Victims:** Belagavi resident
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs 2,000 fine (in default 3 months) under Sec.7; 2 years RI + Rs 3,000 fine (in default 3 months) under Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)

The Special Judge (IV Additional Sessions Judge), Belgaum in Spl. Case (PC Act) No.73/2008 on 26 November 2011 convicted PC (B.No.507) of Hukkeri police station for demanding Rs 500 from complainant \[name withheld\] — threatening over phone and during a 24 May 2007 village visit to kick him and put him in the lockup unless paid — after mediating a Belagavi resident's land dispute with Maruti Babu Vaddar (for which Rs 2,000 had earlier been taken for the PSI). He was sentenced to 1 year RI (Sec.7) and 2 years RI (Sec.13) with fines. On 14 March 2014 the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad, Crl.A.No.2889/2011) set aside the Sec.7 conviction but confirmed the Sec.13(1)(d) conviction and sentence, directing surrender.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144071803/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-05-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-05-015)

## State by Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha (City Wing), Cr.No.59/2009 vs G. Chandrashekaraiah — Spl.C.C.No.37/2010 (t2w2-05-001)

**Record:** t2w2-05-001
**Title:** State by Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha (City Wing), Cr.No.59/2009 vs G. Chandrashekaraiah — Spl.C.C.No.37/2010
**Court:** LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru (CCH-78) (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** State by Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha (City Wing), Cr.No.59/2009 vs G. Chandrashekaraiah — Spl.C.C.No.37/2010
**Conviction:** 29 September 2016
**Incident date:** 2009-08-20 (2009)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** G. Chandrashekaraiah (Head Constable)
**Victims:** Bengaluru Urban resident
**Sentence:** 6 months SI + Rs 2,000 fine (in default 1 month SI) under Sec.7; 1 year SI + Rs 4,000 fine (in default 2 months SI) under Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2); substantive sentences concurrent; set-off under Sec.428 CrPC

The LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru (CCH-78, Manjunath Nayak) on 29 September 2016 convicted Head Constable G. Chandrashekaraiah of Vijayanagara police station for demanding Rs 4,000 (scaled down to Rs 1,000) from complainant \[name withheld\] to execute a non-bailable warrant against \[name withheld\] (C.C.No.12321/2007, 19th ACMM Court), accepting Rs 100 on the morning of 20 August 2009 and trapped the same afternoon receiving the Rs 900 balance near the City Civil Court canteen, with phenolphthalein hand/pocket washes turning pink. He was sentenced to 6 months SI (Sec.7) and 1 year SI (Sec.13) with fines, concurrent. His appeal Crl.A.1722/2016 stood pending in the Lokayukta pending-appeals list as on 31-12-2025.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56256635/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-05-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-05-001)

## State by Karnataka Lokayukta (City Division) vs Bengaluru Urban Police Police Constable, Metal No.8419 (t2w3-08-001)

**Record:** t2w3-08-001
**Title:** State by Karnataka Lokayukta (City Division) vs Bengaluru Urban Police Police Constable, Metal No.8419
**Court:** XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** State by Karnataka Lokayukta (City Division) vs Bengaluru Urban Police Police Constable, Metal No.8419
**Conviction:** 21 October 2016
**Incident date:** 2011-12-10 (2011)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Metal No.8419, Cottonpet Police Station, Bengaluru City
**Victims:** Bengaluru Urban resident
**Sentence:** Not stated in appellate judgment; trial court sentence held adequate and left undisturbed

The XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, in Spl.C.C.No.153/2012 on 21 October 2016 convicted Police Constable (Metal No.8419, Cottonpet Police Station) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding Rs 2,00,000 (reduced to Rs 1,00,000, of which Rs 80,000 was paid) from driver \[name withheld\] (PW.1) to not implicate him in the credit-card case against Jayakumar, and for accepting the Rs 20,000 balance in a Lokayukta trap on 6 February 2012 at Super Talkies parking, Cottonpet, with positive phenolphthalein hand washes and FSL corroboration. On 29 October 2022 the Karnataka High Court (\[name withheld\], Crl.A.No.1883/2016) dismissed his appeal, holding demand proved by PW.1/PW.4, drawing the Section 20 presumption on consistent recovery evidence, and leaving the trial sentence undisturbed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153166760/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-08-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-08-001)

## State by Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta (City Division), Cr.No.77/2012 vs Bengaluru Urban Police Police Inspector (t2w3-08-002)

**Record:** t2w3-08-002
**Title:** State by Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta (City Division), Cr.No.77/2012 vs Bengaluru Urban Police Police Inspector
**Court:** XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** State by Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta (City Division), Cr.No.77/2012 vs Bengaluru Urban Police Police Inspector
**Conviction:** 7 April 2017
**Incident date:** 2012-09-25 (2012)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City
**Victims:** Bengaluru Urban resident
**Sentence:** 9 months simple imprisonment (Sec 7) + 1.5 years simple imprisonment (Sec 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)), substantive sentences concurrent; Rs 2,00,000 trap cash confiscated to \[name withheld\]

The XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, in Spl.C.C.No.99/2013 on 7 April 2017 convicted Police Inspector of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding Rs 15,00,000 (scaled down to Rs 5,00,000) from complainant \[name withheld\] in connection with Crime No.148/2012, accepting Rs 2,00,000 in a Lokayukta trap laid on 25 September 2012 (Cr.No.77/2012). The court sentenced him to 9 months SI (Sec 7, Rs 20,000 fine) and 1.5 years SI (Sec 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), Rs 30,000 fine), concurrent, confiscating the Rs 2,00,000 to the \[name withheld\]. No appeal is known from the sources opened.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11844735/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-08-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-08-002)

## State by Karnataka Lokayuktha, Shivamogga vs Shivamogga Police Police Sub-Inspector (t2-04-005)

**Record:** t2-04-005
**Title:** State by Karnataka Lokayuktha, Shivamogga vs Shivamogga Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge, Shivamogga (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** State by Karnataka Lokayuktha, Shivamogga vs Shivamogga Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 6 May 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Shivamogga, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Town Police Station, Sagar, Shivamogga district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Term not stated in HC order; HC notes the sentence imposed was 'not less than the minimum provided' (statutory minimum 6 months under pre-2018 Sec.7 / 1 year under Sec.13(2))

The Special Judge, Shivamogga, in Spl.(PC) Case No.03/2010 on 6 May 2019 convicted PSI of Town Police Station, Sagar, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, imposing a sentence the High Court later described as not less than the statutory minimum. The \[name withheld\]'s appeal for enhancement of sentence (Crl.A.No.507/2021 under Sec.377 CrPC) was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court on 8 December 2021 for unexplained 391-day delay, leaving the conviction and sentence undisturbed. Bribe amount, trap date and exact sentence are not stated in the appellate order.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32123149/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-04-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-04-005)

## State by Lokayukta Police (City Division) vs Bengaluru Urban Police Head Constable No.2889 (t2w2-05-010)

**Record:** t2w2-05-010
**Title:** State by Lokayukta Police (City Division) vs Bengaluru Urban Police Head Constable No.2889
**Court:** Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** State by Lokayukta Police (City Division) vs Bengaluru Urban Police Head Constable No.2889
**Conviction:** 24 March 2014
**Incident date:** 2009-01-01 (2009)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable No.2889, Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru
**Victims:** Bengaluru Urban resident
**Sentence:** Term not stated in the appellate order (trial judgment Spl.C.C.No.228/2009 not yet traced)

The Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City in Spl.C.C.No.228/2009 on 24 March 2014 convicted Head Constable (No.2889) of Banaswadi police station for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. His appeal (Crl.A.No.273/2014) abated on his death in 2017, recorded by the Karnataka High Court on 6 September 2019 with liberty to legal representatives to revive it. Sentence, bribe amount and trap details are not stated in the appellate order and await the trial judgment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57428130/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-05-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-05-010)

## State by Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta (City Division), Cr.No.55/2012 vs E. Kenchegowda — Spl.C.No.525/2014 (t2-04-006)

**Record:** t2-04-006
**Title:** State by Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta (City Division), Cr.No.55/2012 vs E. Kenchegowda — Spl.C.No.525/2014
**Court:** LXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77) (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** State by Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta (City Division), Cr.No.55/2012 vs E. Kenchegowda — Spl.C.No.525/2014
**Conviction:** 23 March 2020
**Incident date:** 2012-06-22 (2012)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2); IPC 177
**Officers (gated display forms):** E. Kenchegowda (Inspector of Police)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years simple imprisonment + Rs 90,00,000 fine (in default 2 years SI) under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) PC Act; Rs 1,000 fine (in default 1 month SI) under Sec.177 IPC

The LXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77, Sri Ron Vasudev) on 23 March 2020 convicted Inspector of Police E. Kenchegowda of Yelahanka police station in Lokayukta Crime No.55/2012, holding he amassed assets of Rs 82,48,405.83 beyond his known sources of income during 1996-2012 and furnished false information (including concocted APRs and a sham lease-cum-mortgage deed) to screen the acquisitions. He was sentenced to 4 years simple imprisonment with a Rs 90 lakh fine for the PC Act offence and a Rs 1,000 fine under Sec.177 IPC, and acquitted of the Sec.193 and 465 IPC charges. No appeal outcome is known.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53169385/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-04-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-04-006)

## State by Police Inspector, ACB, Bengaluru Urban vs Bengaluru Urban Police Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-05-021)

**Record:** t2w2-05-021
**Title:** State by Police Inspector, ACB, Bengaluru Urban vs Bengaluru Urban Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Judge (PC Act), Bengaluru (CCH-24) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State by Police Inspector, ACB, Bengaluru Urban vs Bengaluru Urban Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 16 March 2022
**Incident date:** 2018-11-07 (2018)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7(a)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, BMTF Police Station, Bengaluru
**Victims:** Bengaluru Urban man
**Sentence:** 3 years SI + Rs 25,000 fine (in default 3 months SI); Rs 50,000 trap cash (MO.9) confiscated to \[name withheld\] (co-accused clerk Chetan K.N.: 3 years SI + Rs 5,000 fine under Sec.12)

The XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PC Act), Bengaluru (CCH-24, Lakshminarayana Bhat K.) in Spl.C.C.No.221/2021 on 16 March 2022 convicted PSI of BMTF police station under Sec.7(a) of the amended Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding Rs 1,25,000 — negotiated to Rs 70,000 — from site owner \[name withheld\] (PW-3) in a BMTF-notice/compound-wall matter at Arehally, receiving Rs 20,000 through contract clerk Chetan K.N. on 2 November 2018 (audio/video recorded) and trapped by ACB police after the 7 November 2018 complaint with the Rs 50,000 balance recovered from the clerk. He was sentenced to the 3-year statutory minimum SI with a Rs 25,000 fine; the clerk was convicted of abetment (Sec.12). The court also ordered a Sec.193 IPC show-cause case against PW-3 for false evidence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149848162/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-05-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-05-021)

## State by DySP, City Division, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Cr.No.38/2009 vs Armed Police Superintendent of Police (retired; served as SP, Armed Police Training School) (t2w2-05-020)

**Record:** t2w2-05-020
**Title:** State by DySP, City Division, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Cr.No.38/2009 vs Armed Police Superintendent of Police (retired; served as SP, Armed Police Training School)
**Court:** LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru City (CCH-78) (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** State by DySP, City Division, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Cr.No.38/2009 vs Armed Police Superintendent of Police (retired; served as SP, Armed Police Training School)
**Conviction:** 22 June 2022
**Incident date:** 2007-11-03 (2007)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police (retired; served as SP, Armed Police Training School), Armed Police Training School, Yelahanka, Bengaluru
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years SI + Rs 1,00,00,000 (Rs 1 crore) fine (in default 2 years SI); free certified copy to offender; conviction warrant issued

The LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru City (CCH-78, S.V. Srikanth) in Spl.C.C.No.125/2009 on 22 June 2022 convicted retired \[name withheld\] of Police \[name withheld\] — formerly SP, Armed Police Training School, Yelahanka — for criminal misconduct by possessing disproportionate assets of Rs 40,60,324 (53.58% over known sources: assets Rs 81,02,997, expenditure Rs 34,44,798, income Rs 75,77,471) across the check period 01-01-1987 to 03-11-2007, after examining PWs.1-13/Ex.P.1-174 and DWs.1-38. He was sentenced to 4 years SI with a Rs 1 crore fine. His conviction appeal Crl.A.No.1305/2022 stood pending in the Lokayukta list as on 31-12-2025; his Sec.482 petition against a 2019 trial order (Crl.P.6675/2019) was dismissed as infructuous on 12 June 2026.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73910147/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115476669/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-05-020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-05-020)

## State by Lokayukta Police, Belagavi (DySP), Cr.No.22/2011 vs Belagavi Police Civil Head Constable, Buckle No.750 (t2w2-05-004)

**Record:** t2w2-05-004
**Title:** State by Lokayukta Police, Belagavi (DySP), Cr.No.22/2011 vs Belagavi Police Civil Head Constable, Buckle No.750
**Court:** IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** State by Lokayukta Police, Belagavi (DySP), Cr.No.22/2011 vs Belagavi Police Civil Head Constable, Buckle No.750
**Conviction:** 3 November 2014
**Incident date:** 2011-01-01 (2011)
**Place:** Belagavi, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Civil Head Constable, Buckle No.750, Marihal Police Station, Belagavi
**Victims:** Belagavi resident
**Sentence:** 6 months SI under Sec.7; 1 year SI + Rs 5,000 fine (in default 2 months SI) under Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)

The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi in Spl.C.No.46/2012 on 3 November 2014 convicted Civil Head Constable (Buckle 750) of Marihal police station for demanding Rs 3,500 as illegal gratification for settling a criminal case filed by one Sanjay against the complainant's son (Rs 3,000 taken first; the Rs 500 balance trapped at Deepa Hotel, Belagavi, Cr.No.22/2011). He was sentenced to 6 months SI (Sec.7) and 1 year SI with Rs 5,000 fine (Sec.13). On 9 August 2024 the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench, Crl.A.No.100217/2014) dismissed his appeal, holding demand by signs coupled with seizure from his person proved demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145512185/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-05-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-05-004)

## State by ACB Police, Cr.No.26/2017 vs Bengaluru Urban Police Head Constable No.7878 (t2w2-05-007)

**Record:** t2w2-05-007
**Title:** State by ACB Police, Cr.No.26/2017 vs Bengaluru Urban Police Head Constable No.7878
**Court:** XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State by ACB Police, Cr.No.26/2017 vs Bengaluru Urban Police Head Constable No.7878
**Conviction:** 29 September 2021
**Incident date:** 2017-07-15 (2017)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.8; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable No.7878, Bagalagunte Police Station, Bengaluru
**Victims:** Bengaluru Urban resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs 50,000 fine under Sec.8; 4 years RI + Rs 50,000 fine under Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)

The XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.383/2018 on 29 September 2021 convicted Head Constable (No.7878) of Bagalagunte police station for demanding Rs 20,000 (settled at Rs 10,000, with Rs 1,000 already taken on 30 June 2017) from PW.2 — an accused in Bagalagunte PS Cr.No.238/2017 — to close/compromise that case, and trapped by ACB police on 15 July 2017 at the police station accepting the Rs 10,000 tainted amount (Cr.No.26/2017), with pink hand washes, FSL confirmation and CDR corroboration. He was sentenced to 3 years RI (Sec.8) and 4 years RI (Sec.13) with Rs 50,000 fines. On 2 May 2025 the Karnataka High Court (Crl.A.No.1562/2021) dismissed his appeal, holding demand and acceptance proved by consistent PW.2/PW.4/PW.6 evidence and corroborative CDR/FSL records.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47081662/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106043013/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-05-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-05-007)

## State by Police Inspector, Lokayuktha, Bengaluru vs Bengaluru Urban Police Police Constable No.4931 (t2w2-05-016)

**Record:** t2w2-05-016
**Title:** State by Police Inspector, Lokayuktha, Bengaluru vs Bengaluru Urban Police Police Constable No.4931
**Court:** Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** State by Police Inspector, Lokayuktha, Bengaluru vs Bengaluru Urban Police Police Constable No.4931
**Conviction:** 30 September 2013
**Incident date:** 2010-01-01 (2010)
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable No.4931, Yeshwanthapura Police Station, Bengaluru City
**Victims:** Bengaluru Urban resident
**Sentence:** 6.5 months RI + Rs 250 fine under Sec.7; 13 months RI + Rs 500 fine under Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), with default sentence (terms not stated in appellate order)

The Special Judge (PCA), Bangalore Urban in Spl.C.C.No.40/2010 on 30 September 2013 convicted PC (No.4931) of Yeshwanthapura police station for demanding Rs 2,000 from the complainant (PW.1) to execute the arrest warrant issued in Yeshwanthapura PS Cr.No.265/2008, and trapped with phenolphthalein-smeared notes in the presence of shadow (PW.2) and pancha (PW.5) witnesses. He was sentenced to 6.5 months RI (Sec.7) and 13 months RI (Sec.13) with fines. On 10 July 2025 the Karnataka High Court (Crl.A.No.1020/2013) dismissed his appeal, finding the trial court's appreciation of oral, documentary and MO.7 cassette evidence proper, and ordered the conviction warrant to issue.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181357565/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-05-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-05-016)

## State by Lokayukta Police vs Basanagouda Siddanagouda Patil — Spl. Case No.17/2013; Crl.A.No.100171/2015 (Karnataka HC, Dharwad) (t2w2-05-019)

**Record:** t2w2-05-019
**Title:** State by Lokayukta Police vs Basanagouda Siddanagouda Patil — Spl. Case No.17/2013; Crl.A.No.100171/2015 (Karnataka HC, Dharwad)
**Court:** IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** State by Lokayukta Police vs Basanagouda Siddanagouda Patil — Spl. Case No.17/2013; Crl.A.No.100171/2015 (Karnataka HC, Dharwad)
**Conviction:** 28 January 2026
**Incident date:** 2012-06-18 (2012)
**Place:** Belagavi, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Basanagouda Siddanagouda Patil (Civil Head Constable, B.No.1441)
**Victims:** Belagavi man
**Sentence:** 6 months SI under Sec.7; 1 year SI + Rs 5,000 fine (in default 2 months SI) under Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2); concurrent; MO.1 (Rs 1,000) confiscated to Government

The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi in Spl. Case No.17/2013 convicted Civil Head Constable (B.No.1441) of Kakati police station for demanding Rs 1,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] — repeatedly summoned with his wife to the station on suspicion in Raju Sulebhavi's 2 June 2011 gold-theft complaint, prompting a complaint to the SP Belagavi on 26 August 2011 — trapped by Lokayukta police on 18 June 2012 after a 16 June 2012 phone contact. He was sentenced to 6 months SI (Sec.7) and 1 year SI with Rs 5,000 fine (Sec.13), concurrent. On 28 January 2026 the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad, Crl.A.No.100171/2015) dismissed his appeal as meritless, holding the minimum sentence proper, and directed surrender by 10 February 2026.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191120148/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-05-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-05-019)

## CBI v. Karnataka Police Police Inspector (then SHO) (t2-13-020)

**Record:** t2-13-020
**Title:** CBI v. Karnataka Police Police Inspector (then SHO)
**Court:** LXXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Court for MP/MLA cases), Bengaluru (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Karnataka Police Police Inspector (then SHO)
**Conviction:** 15 April 2026
**Incident date:** 2016-06-15 (2016)
**Place:** Dharwad, Karnataka
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B; IPC 201 r/w 120-B; IPC 218 r/w 120-B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector (then SHO), Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station, Karnataka Police
**Victims:** Dharwad man
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 7 years + fine Rs 80,000 (convicted 15.04.2026; sentenced 17.04.2026)

The Special MP/MLA Court, Bengaluru convicted Police Inspector, then SHO of Dharwad Sub-Urban station, for conspiring with the murder masterminds to destroy evidence and frame others for the 15.06.2016 murder of Zilla Panchayat member a Dharwad man, sentencing him to 7 years' RI. The court held the Dharwad police's original chargesheet against six persons was part of the cover-up exposed by the CBI's further investigation. Sixteen other accused including the MLA-mastermind received double life terms; Rs 16 lakh of the fines goes to the victim's children.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NzY5NQ==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-020)

## Meppadi PS Crime 29/1999 (t2w3-16-013)

**Record:** t2w3-16-013
**Title:** Meppadi PS Crime 29/1999
**Court:** Sessions Court, Wayanad (court not named in list; Meppadi 29/1999 case) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Meppadi PS Crime 29/1999
**Conviction:** 1999
**Incident date:** 1999-01-01 (1999)
**Place:** Wayanad, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 323; IPC 304; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** SCPO 1216, Wayanad, Kerala Police; SCPO 1114, Wayanad, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years simple imprisonment each under s.304 IPC + 6 months SI each under s.323 IPC, concurrent (as listed)

Kerala Police’s official removed-from-service list records that SCPO 1216 \[name withheld\] and SCPO 1114 \[name withheld\] (Wayanad) were each sentenced to 5 years’ simple imprisonment under s.304 IPC plus 6 months SI under s.323 IPC (concurrent) in Meppadi PS Crime 29/1999, and removed from service on 16-02-2022. The list names no trial court, conviction date or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/ZKnCGuSfApEgRg76SocCTjm9M0MMI6QFX6gcUNX3.pdf); [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/page/police-personnel-removed-from-service)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-013)

## Crl.A.No.108/2001 against judgment in CC 63/1999 of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (t2w3-16-002)

**Record:** t2w3-16-002
**Title:** Crl.A.No.108/2001 against judgment in CC 63/1999 of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Crl.A.No.108/2001 against judgment in CC 63/1999 of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram
**Conviction:** 2000
**Incident date:** 1998-12-09 (1998)
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.7 (charged; conviction set aside on appeal)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable 4782 (Station Writer), Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Trial court: 3 years imprisonment each under ss.7 and 13(2); on appeal (22-05-2014, Justice A. Hariprasad) s.7 conviction set aside, s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) conviction confirmed, sentence reduced to 1 year RI + Rs 10,000 fine

The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, in CC 63/1999, convicted Head Constable, Station Writer of Fort Police Station, for demanding Rs 1,500 from PW2 on 09-12-1998 to release his bicycle, wrist watch, fountain pen and wallet detained at the station (PW2 had been picked up on a s.446 CrPC realisation warrant as surety), and accepting two Rs 100 decoy notes in a VACB trap laid by the DySP, VACB Thiruvananthapuram. The Kerala High Court (Crl.A.No.108/2001, decided 22-05-2014) held voluntary acceptance of bribe proved, set aside the s.7 conviction, confirmed the conviction under s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) PC Act, and reduced the sentence to one year's RI with Rs 10,000 fine.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10284191/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-002)

## VC 2/2003/Kannur (t2w3-16-019)

**Record:** t2w3-16-019
**Title:** VC 2/2003/Kannur
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thalassery/Kannur (inferred from VC 2/2003/Kannur; court not named in list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** VC 2/2003/Kannur
**Conviction:** 2003
**Incident date:** 2003-01-01 (2003)
**Place:** Kannur, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Police Training College (PTC), Kerala Police (VC Kannur case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** convicted on both counts (sentence details garbled in list)

Kerala Police’s official corruption-conviction list records that Inspector (PTC) was convicted on criminal charges under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in VC 2/2003/Kannur, and removed from service on 17-07-2012. The list names no trial court, sentence, conviction date or appeal status; the conviction falls between 2003 and July 2012.

**Sources (2):** [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/cUS9dEkyd62dZxnzJqPj2A85KCZYkCCTlOBR3qi5.pdf); [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/page/police-personnel-removed-from-service)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-019)

## VC 03/2007/Kollam (t2w3-16-018)

**Record:** t2w3-16-018
**Title:** VC 03/2007/Kollam
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Kollam (inferred from VC 03/2007/Kollam; court not named in list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** VC 03/2007/Kollam
**Conviction:** 2007
**Incident date:** 2007-01-01 (2007)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** CPO E 8249, Kochi City, Kerala Police (VC Kollam case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 6 months RI + Rs 1,000 (s.7); 6 months RI (s.7 + s.120B IPC); 1 year RI + Rs 2,000 (ss.13(1)(d)/13(2)), as listed

Kerala Police’s official corruption-conviction list records that CPO E 8249 \[name withheld\] (Kochi City) was convicted in VC 03/2007/Kollam (s.120B IPC and ss.7/13(1)(d)/13(2) PC Act) with 6-month and 1-year RI terms plus fines, and removed from service on 22-06-2017. The list names no trial court, conviction date or appeal status; the conviction falls between 2007 and June 2017.

**Sources (2):** [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/cUS9dEkyd62dZxnzJqPj2A85KCZYkCCTlOBR3qi5.pdf); [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/page/police-personnel-removed-from-service)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-018)

## SC No.787/2008 (Chadayamangalam PS 147/2006) (t2w3-16-008)

**Record:** t2w3-16-008
**Title:** SC No.787/2008 (Chadayamangalam PS 147/2006)
**Court:** Sessions Court, Kollam (listed as 'Hon'ble VAKAF Court Kollam', SC 787/2008) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** SC No.787/2008 (Chadayamangalam PS 147/2006)
**Conviction:** 2008
**Incident date:** 2006-01-01 (2006)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** CPO 6118, Kollam City, Kerala Police (Chadayamangalam PS case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment (as listed)

Kerala Police’s official removed-from-service list records that CPO 6118 \[name withheld\] of Kollam City was convicted for 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment under s.302 IPC by the Sessions Court at Kollam (rendered as ‘VAKAF Court Kollam’) in SC 787/2008 arising from Chadayamangalam PS Crime 147/2006, and removed from service on 23-07-2010. The list gives no conviction date or appeal status; the conviction therefore falls between 2008 and July 2010.

**Sources (2):** [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/0314ZJ03WIeq7I9grscmlUlOj5wfrbtklA5NcDya.pdf); [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/page/police-personnel-removed-from-service)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-008)

## Kollam Man v. D. Rajagopal & Ors (Ezhukone PS custodial torture, 1996); CC No. 181/1996 (t2w2-14-003)

**Record:** t2w2-14-003
**Title:** Kollam Man v. D. Rajagopal & Ors (Ezhukone PS custodial torture, 1996); CC No. 181/1996
**Court:** Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottarakkara (CC No. 181/1996) (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Kollam Man v. D. Rajagopal & Ors (Ezhukone PS custodial torture, 1996); CC No. 181/1996
**Conviction:** 2009
**Incident date:** 1996-02-08 (1996)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 323 r/w IPC 34; IPC 324 r/w IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** D. Rajagopal (Sub-Inspector (A-1, then SI)); Manirajan (Police Constable No. 4690 (A-3)); Baby (Police Constable No. 3817 (A-4)); Sharafudeen (Police Constable (A-5))
**Victims:** Kollam man
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment + Rs 2,500 fine each under section 324/34; Rs 1,000 fine each under section 323/34; Rs 10,000 compensation to complainant from fine

The Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottarakkara (CC No. 181/1996) convicted Sub-Inspector D. Rajagopal and three constables of Ezhukone police station for dragging complainant \[name withheld\] from his home to the station on 8 February 1996 over a wage demand against a policeman's kin, and brutally assaulting him in custody overnight — including cigarette burns on his tongue that left him unable to speak when produced before the Magistrate next day — after foisting a false obstruction case on him. The court sentenced each to one year's simple imprisonment plus fines under IPC sections 323 and 324 read with section 34. The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Kollam confirmed the conviction in appeal, and the Kerala High Court (Justice Mary Joseph, Crl.R.P. Nos. 519-520/2013, 23 June 2021) upheld it, holding sanction under section 197 CrPC does not protect custodial torture.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125749818/); [sabrangindia.in](https://sabrangindia.in/kerala-hc-upholds-conviction-4-policemen-custodial-torture-case/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kerala-high-court-section-197-crpc-sanction-not-required-to-prosecute-policemen-for-their-illegal-acts-183571)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-14-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-14-003)

## CBI v. Kerala Police Superintendent of Police at time of offence (Additional Director General of Police at conviction) (t2w4-22-002)

**Record:** t2w4-22-002
**Title:** CBI v. Kerala Police Superintendent of Police at time of offence (Additional Director General of Police at conviction)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam (C.C. No.513 of 1995; CBI case) (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Kerala Police Superintendent of Police at time of offence (Additional Director General of Police at conviction)
**Conviction:** January 2009
**Incident date:** 1988-02-01 (1988)
**Place:** Ernakulam, Kerala
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 323; IPC 342; IPC 357; IPC 465; IPC 201 r/w IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Police at time of offence (Additional Director General of Police at conviction), Kerala Police (SP, Kannur at the time of offence)
**Victims:** Ernakulam resident
**Sentence:** 6 months imprisonment (per contemporaneous news report of the verdict; exact section-wise break-up not confirmed)

The CBI's official press-release index for January 2009 records that an 'Addl. DGP, Kerala and three other police officials' were 'sentenced \[to\] six months imprisonment in a CBI case' (release dated 13 January 2009). Per the Kerala High Court's 2007 order in the same prosecution (C.C. No.513/1995 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, arising from CBI RC 28/92), the lead accused is \[name withheld\], then SP Kannur and by trial ADGP, facing charges including IPC ss.323, 342, 357, 465 and 201 r/w 120-B for the 1988 custodial torture of an Ernakulam resident, editor/printer/publisher of the Kannur evening daily Sudinam, who had published reports against the police. A contemporaneous news report records that CJM Ernakulam (P.D. Soman) convicted the officers on Monday 12 January 2009 with six months jail and Rs.25,000 fine; the names of the three other convicted officials were not stated in the sources accessed, and no appeal outcome is known.

**Sources (3):** [web.archive.org](http://web.archive.org/web/20090115000000/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pressrelease.php); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167527431/); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20091229203540id_/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pressrelease.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-22-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-22-002)

## CBI case: Addl. DGP Kerala and three other police officials sentenced (CBI PR dated 13.01.2009) (t2w3-23-006)

**Record:** t2w3-23-006
**Title:** CBI case: Addl. DGP Kerala and three other police officials sentenced (CBI PR dated 13.01.2009)
**Court:** Not stated in index entry (CBI case) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI case: Addl. DGP Kerala and three other police officials sentenced (CBI PR dated 13.01.2009)
**Conviction:** 13 January 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Unknown, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Additional Director General of Police, Kerala Police; Police Official, Kerala Police; Police Official, Kerala Police; Police Official, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Six months imprisonment

The official CBI press-release index (archived) lists a release dated 13.01.2009 titled 'Addl. DGP, Kerala and three other police officials sentenced six month's imprisonment in a CBI case'. The index entry does not name the officers, the convicting court, the underlying offence, the case number, or the sections. The linked full press-release page was not captured by the web archive and no corroborating report could be verified in-session.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20090131144832id_/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pressrelease.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-23-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-23-006)

## Vadakkenchery PS Crime 287/2011 (s.102 CrPC altered into ss.465/468 IPC) (t2w3-16-017)

**Record:** t2w3-16-017
**Title:** Vadakkenchery PS Crime 287/2011 (s.102 CrPC altered into ss.465/468 IPC)
**Court:** Judicial Magistrate court, Palakkad (court not named in list; Vadakkenchery 287/2011 case) (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Vadakkenchery PS Crime 287/2011 (s.102 CrPC altered into ss.465/468 IPC)
**Conviction:** 2011
**Incident date:** 2011-01-01 (2011)
**Place:** Palakkad, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 465; IPC 468
**Officers (gated display forms):** GSCPO 4613, Palakkad, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs 3,000 fine (s.465) + 3 years RI + Rs 3,000 fine (s.468), as listed

Kerala Police’s official list (as on 31-10-2025) records that GSCPO 4613 \[name withheld\] (Palakkad) was convicted in Vadakkenchery PS Crime 287/2011 (ss.465/468 IPC) with 1 year and 3 years’ RI plus fines, removed from service on 05-01-2025 (modified to compulsory retirement on appeal on 18-06-2025). The list names no trial court, conviction date or appeal status; the conviction falls between 2011 and January 2025.

**Sources (2):** [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/qegCY0QLVnCcT90bv5jktczax3Iw4fhDOGgL12Ll.pdf); [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/page/police-personnel-removed-from-service)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-017)

## State vs R. Shaji (A1, DySP) and Vinu (A2) — SC No.145/2005 (Kottayam Man murder, Crime 110/2005 Ettumanoor PS) (t2w2-07-009)

**Record:** t2w2-07-009
**Title:** State vs R. Shaji (A1, DySP) and Vinu (A2) — SC No.145/2005 (Kottayam Man murder, Crime 110/2005 Ettumanoor PS)
**Court:** Sessions Court, Kottayam (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs R. Shaji (A1, DySP) and Vinu (A2) — SC No.145/2005 (Kottayam Man murder, Crime 110/2005 Ettumanoor PS)
**Conviction:** 3 January 2006
**Incident date:** 2004-11-01 (2004)
**Place:** Kottayam, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302 r/w 120B; IPC 201 r/w 120B; IPC 364 r/w 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** R. Shaji (Deputy Superintendent of Police (then serving at Malappuram))
**Victims:** Kottayam man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment + Rs 1,00,000 fine (default 1 year SI) for s.302 r/w 120-B; 3 years + Rs 2,000 fine (default 3 months SI) for s.201 r/w 120-B; 7 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine (default 1 year SI) for s.364 r/w 120-B; all concurrent

The Sessions Court, Kottayam convicted Deputy Superintendent of Police R. Shaji (A1) in SC 145/2005 on 03-01-2006 for hatching a criminal conspiracy and getting his driver \[name withheld\] murdered and dismembered in late 2004 after discovering a Kottayam man's relationship with his wife, sentencing him to life imprisonment with a Rs 1 lakh fine plus consecutive-term sentences for evidence-destruction and kidnapping, all concurrent. The Kerala High Court (Crl.A.86/2006, 10-12-2009) dismissed his appeal, and the Supreme Court (Justices B.\[name withheld\] and V. Gopala Gowda, Crl.A.1774/2010, 04-02-2013, AIR 2013 SC 651) dismissed the further appeal finding no merit, confirming the conviction and sentence. Co-accused \[name withheld\] (A2, private) got life plus concurrent terms; A3/A4 were convicted in a separate trial (SC 120/2006) though later acquitted on appeal, and A5 remained absconding.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178895486/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/534372/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-07-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-07-009)

## Town East PS Crime 1613/2014 (t2w3-16-016)

**Record:** t2w3-16-016
**Title:** Town East PS Crime 1613/2014
**Court:** Judicial Magistrate court, Thrissur (court not named in list; Town East PS 1613/2014 calendar case) (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Town East PS Crime 1613/2014
**Conviction:** 2014
**Incident date:** 2014-01-01 (2014)
**Place:** Thrissur, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 465; IPC 466; IPC 468; IPC 471; IPC 420
**Officers (gated display forms):** SCPO 5895, Chelakkara, Thrissur City, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years SI + Rs 10,000 (s.420) + 2 years SI + Rs 10,000 (s.465) + 3 years SI + Rs 10,000 (s.466) + 3 years SI + Rs 10,000 (s.468) + 2 years SI + Rs 10,000 (s.471), as listed

Kerala Police’s official list (as on 31-10-2025) records that SCPO 5895 \[name withheld\] (Chelakkara, Thrissur City) was convicted in Town East PS Crime 1613/2014 (ss.465/466/468/471/420 IPC) with 2-3 year SI terms and Rs 10,000 fine on each of five counts, and removed from service in October 2025. The list names no trial court, conviction date or appeal status; the conviction falls between 2014 and 2025.

**Sources (2):** [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/qegCY0QLVnCcT90bv5jktczax3Iw4fhDOGgL12Ll.pdf); [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/page/police-personnel-removed-from-service)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-016)

## CBI v. Kerala Police Constable (then; Sub-Inspector of Police at Kollam at PR date) and others (t2w3-24-019)

**Record:** t2w3-24-019
**Title:** CBI v. Kerala Police Constable (then; Sub-Inspector of Police at Kollam at PR date) and others
**Court:** CBI Court, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Kerala Police Constable (then; Sub-Inspector of Police at Kollam at PR date) and others
**Conviction:** 5 August 2014
**Incident date:** 2005-01-01 (2005)
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B r/w 419, 420, 468; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); Passport Act s.12(1)(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (then; Sub-Inspector of Police at Kollam at PR date), Office of SP, Special Branch, Kollam, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the CBI Court, Thiruvananthapuram convicted then-Constables and \[name withheld\] of Kerala Police in a forgery case and sentenced each to three years RI with Rs.10,000 fine. The release states both men, working in the SP Special Branch office at Kollam, conspired with a Kollam travel agent to submit a passport application for a private person in the fictitious name 'Paul Samuel' with forged ration-card and school-register extracts, sending a clear police verification report to the Trivandrum passport office without any verification; CBI took over Cr.No.2/2005 of Vattiyoorkavu PS on Kerala High Court directions, and the absconding private applicant's case was split up.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzIxNw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-019)

## CBI v. Kerala Police Police Constable (then; retired from service at PR date) and others (t2w3-24-020)

**Record:** t2w3-24-020
**Title:** CBI v. Kerala Police Police Constable (then; retired from service at PR date) and others
**Court:** CBI Court, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Kerala Police Police Constable (then; retired from service at PR date) and others
**Conviction:** 5 August 2014
**Incident date:** 2005-01-01 (2005)
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B r/w 419, 420, 468; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); Passport Act s.12(1)(b)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (then; retired from service at PR date), Office of SP, Special Branch, Kollam, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the CBI Court, Thiruvananthapuram convicted then-Constables and \[name withheld\] of Kerala Police in a forgery case and sentenced each to three years RI with Rs.10,000 fine. The release states both men, working in the SP Special Branch office at Kollam, sent a clear police verification report without verification for a fictitious 'Paul Samuel' passport application with forged enclosures; \[name withheld\] has since retired from service while \[name withheld\] serves as Sub-Inspector at Kollam.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzIxNw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-020)

## State vs Kollam Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (Grade) (t2-11-007)

**Record:** t2-11-007
**Title:** State vs Kollam Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (Grade)
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State vs Kollam Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (Grade)
**Conviction:** 31 October 2014
**Incident date:** 2009-04-24 (2009)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (Grade), Chavara Police Station, Kollam
**Victims:** Kollam man
**Sentence:** Trial: 2 years RI plus Rs 5,000 fine under each of s.7 and s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) (default 3 months each). On appeal (Kerala HC, 06-03-2026): conviction confirmed; sentence reduced to statutory minimum — 6 months RI plus Rs 5,000 fine (s.7) and 1 year RI plus Rs 10,000 fine (s.13), concurrent.

The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram convicted ASI (Grade) \[name withheld\] of Chavara police station in CC No.27/2010 on 31-10-2014 for demanding Rs 2,000 from complainant, a Kollam man, on 21-04-2009 and accepting it on 24-04-2009, sentencing him to two years' RI under each PC Act count. The Kerala High Court (Justice A. Badharudeen, Crl.A. No.1229/2014, decided 06-03-2026, 2026:KER:20489) held demand and acceptance proved through the trap witnesses and confirmed the conviction, interfering only to reduce the sentence to the statutory minimum in the interest of justice. The appeal was thus allowed in part with the guilty finding intact.

**Sources (2):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2033000122920142watermark-1773231.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/kerala-high-court/sudarsanan-v-state-of-kerala-crla-no-1229-of-2014-bribery-asi-demand-acceptance-1609517)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-11-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-11-007)

## State (CBCID Crime No.189/CR/KLM) vs Jayakumar and M. Venugopal — SC No.808/2008 (Kollam Man custodial death) (t2-11-009)

**Record:** t2-11-009
**Title:** State (CBCID Crime No.189/CR/KLM) vs Jayakumar and M. Venugopal — SC No.808/2008 (Kollam Man custodial death)
**Court:** Additional District Court and Sessions Court-VI, Kollam (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State (CBCID Crime No.189/CR/KLM) vs Jayakumar and M. Venugopal — SC No.808/2008 (Kollam Man custodial death)
**Conviction:** 28 November 2014
**Incident date:** 2005-04-06 (2005)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302 r/w IPC 34; IPC 348 r/w IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Jayakumar (Police Constable (crime squad)); M. Venugopal (Police Constable (crime squad))
**Victims:** Kollam man, age 37
**Sentence:** Trial: life imprisonment plus Rs 1,00,000 fine each under s.302/34 (default 1 year RI), plus 2 years RI plus Rs 10,000 fine each under s.348/34, concurrent; Rs 2,00,000 fine to deceased's mother. On appeal (Kerala HC Crl.A.1267/2014, 07-01-2020): altered to 5 years RI under s.304 Part II/34; s.348/34 conviction and 2-year sentence confirmed; Rs 2,00,000 compensation retained.

Additional District and Sessions Court-VI, Kollam convicted East PS crime-squad constables Jayakumar and M. Venugopal in SC No.808/2008 on 28-11-2014 for the custodial murder of a Kollam man (37), a mobile-phone theft suspect picked up from Sanker's Hospital on 06-04-2005 and tortured in their exclusive custody at the Sardar Vallabhai police museum lockup to extract a confession, rejecting their alibi defence. The trial court imposed life terms plus two-year terms for wrongful confinement with Rs 2 lakh to the victim's mother. The Kerala High Court (Justices A. Hariprasad and \[name withheld\], 07-01-2020) confirmed the torture findings but altered murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (5 years RI each), keeping the s.348 conviction and compensation intact. NOTE: overlaps tier-1 record KERALA-001 (same conviction at HC level); T2-21 to merge.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121952943/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-11-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-11-009)

## State (VACB) vs A. Sasidharan — CC No.21/2002 (Rs 300 bribe to drop name from Crime 17/99 accused array) (t2w2-07-004)

**Record:** t2w2-07-004
**Title:** State (VACB) vs A. Sasidharan — CC No.21/2002 (Rs 300 bribe to drop name from Crime 17/99 accused array)
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (VACB) vs A. Sasidharan — CC No.21/2002 (Rs 300 bribe to drop name from Crime 17/99 accused array)
**Conviction:** 13 August 2015
**Incident date:** 1999-03-10 (1999)
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** A. Sasidharan (Head Constable)
**Victims:** Thiruvananthapuram resident
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs 3,000 fine (s.7); 1 year RI + Rs 5,000 fine (s.13), concurrent

The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram convicted Venjaramoodu head constable A. Sasidharan in CC 21/2002 on 21-02-2005 for demanding Rs 500 from a Thiruvananthapuram resident on 08-03-1999 to delete his name from the accused array in Crime 17/99 and accepting Rs 300 in tainted currency in a VACB trap on 10-03-1999, sentencing him to one year RI on each PC Act count with Rs 3,000 and Rs 5,000 fines. The Kerala High Court (Crl.A.446/2005, 05-11-2007) confirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court (Crl.A.952/2008, CJI H.L. Dattu with Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, 13-08-2015) dismissed the appeal holding the High Court order suffered from no infirmity, directing the police authorities to take him into custody to serve the remaining sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121625441/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-07-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-07-004)

## State (VACB SIU Thiruvananthapuram) vs Thiruvananthapuram Police Sub-Inspector (former, at trial) (t2w3-37-007)

**Record:** t2w3-37-007
**Title:** State (VACB SIU Thiruvananthapuram) vs Thiruvananthapuram Police Sub-Inspector (former, at trial)
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (VACB SIU Thiruvananthapuram) vs Thiruvananthapuram Police Sub-Inspector (former, at trial)
**Conviction:** 3 November 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (former, at trial), Pallichal Police Station
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** convicted and sentenced 17.09.2007 (RI quantum not stated in appellate record; Rs.10,000 fine noted by High Court)

Per the Kerala High Court (Crl.A. 1913/2007, decided 03.11.2015), \[name withheld\], formerly SI of Pallichal Police Station, was found guilty by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (CC 52/2003, judgment 17.09.2007) on evidence that he accepted Rs.1,000 from the complainant at his residence, and was convicted and sentenced under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act. The appeal abated without a merits decision as the appellant died pending appeal; the court noted a Rs.10,000 fine and declined to pursue its realisation. Distinct from the excluded \[name withheld\] (Head Constable, CC 21/2002, convicted 21.02.2005).

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/74021953/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Unknown

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-37-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-37-007)

## Naruvamoodu PS Crime 998/2016 (t2w3-16-015)

**Record:** t2w3-16-015
**Title:** Naruvamoodu PS Crime 998/2016
**Court:** Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram (court not named in list; Naruvamoodu 998/2016 case) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Naruvamoodu PS Crime 998/2016
**Conviction:** 2016
**Incident date:** 2016-01-01 (2016)
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 294(b); IPC 341; IPC 354; IPC 376; IPC 376D; IPC 511; IPC 306 r/w IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** SCPO 1567, Traffic, Thiruvananthapuram City, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 15 years rigorous imprisonment (as listed)

Kerala Police’s official list (as on 31-10-2025) records that SCPO 1567 \[name withheld\] (Traffic, Thiruvananthapuram City) was sentenced to 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment in Naruvamoodu PS Crime 998/2016 (ss.294(b)/341/354/376/376(D)/511/306 r/w s.34 IPC), and removed from service in 2023. The list names no trial court, conviction date or appeal status; the conviction falls between 2016 and 2023.

**Sources (2):** [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/qegCY0QLVnCcT90bv5jktczax3Iw4fhDOGgL12Ll.pdf); [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/page/police-personnel-removed-from-service)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-015)

## State (VACB) vs A. Soman — CC No.14/2004 (Rs 1,000 bribe to absolve complainant of criminal liability) (t2w2-07-003)

**Record:** t2w2-07-003
**Title:** State (VACB) vs A. Soman — CC No.14/2004 (Rs 1,000 bribe to absolve complainant of criminal liability)
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (VACB) vs A. Soman — CC No.14/2004 (Rs 1,000 bribe to absolve complainant of criminal liability)
**Conviction:** 14 March 2016
**Incident date:** 2002-08-10 (2002)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** A. Soman (Head Constable HCQ 3565 (retired))
**Victims:** Kollam woman
**Sentence:** Trial: 3 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine (s.13); 2 years RI (s.7). On appeal: reduced to 1 year SI (s.13) and 6 months SI (s.7); fine maintained, default reduced to 3 months SI.

The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram convicted Pathanapuram head constable A. Soman in CC 14/2004 on 31-12-2007 for demanding Rs 500 and then Rs 1,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] on 06-08-2002 as illegal gratification to absolve her of criminal liability, accepting Rs 1,000 in a VACB trap at the police station on 10-08-2002. The court imposed three years RI with Rs 5,000 fine under s.13 and two years RI under s.7 PC Act. The Kerala High Court (Justice P. Ubaid, Crl.A.104/2008, 14-03-2016) confirmed the conviction and reduced the jail terms to the statutory minimum of one year and six months simple imprisonment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84463581/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-07-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-07-003)

## State (VACB) vs P. Abdullakoya — CC No.79/2008 (Rs 2,000 bribe for illegal river-sand transport) (t2w2-07-001)

**Record:** t2w2-07-001
**Title:** State (VACB) vs P. Abdullakoya — CC No.79/2008 (Rs 2,000 bribe for illegal river-sand transport)
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (VACB) vs P. Abdullakoya — CC No.79/2008 (Rs 2,000 bribe for illegal river-sand transport)
**Conviction:** 30 May 2017
**Incident date:** 2002-07-22 (2002)
**Place:** Malappuram, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** P. Abdullakoya (Police Constable No.2896 (Senior Civil Police Officer, Kondotty PS at appeal))
**Victims:** Malappuram resident
**Sentence:** Trial: 2 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine (s.7); 3 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine (s.13). On appeal: reduced to 6 months SI (s.7) and 1 year SI (s.13), fines maintained, concurrent.

The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur convicted Areacode police constable P. Abdullakoya in CC 79/2008 on 18-10-2013 for accepting Rs 2,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] on 22-07-2002 as illegal gratification for himself and the Sub-Inspector to allow illicit river-sand transport, caught in a VACB trap while on sentry duty. The court imposed two years RI under s.7 and three years RI under s.13 PC Act with Rs 10,000 fine on each count. The Kerala High Court (Justice P. Ubaid, Crl.A.1559/2013, 30-05-2017) confirmed the conviction, holding demand and acceptance proved by the complainant and trap witness, and reduced the jail terms to the statutory minimum.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6221688/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-07-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-07-001)

## State (VACB) vs Raghavan — CC No.38/2008 (Rs 1,000 + liquor bottle bribe to settle assault case) (t2w2-07-006)

**Record:** t2w2-07-006
**Title:** State (VACB) vs Raghavan — CC No.38/2008 (Rs 1,000 + liquor bottle bribe to settle assault case)
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kottayam (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (VACB) vs Raghavan — CC No.38/2008 (Rs 1,000 + liquor bottle bribe to settle assault case)
**Conviction:** 23 June 2017
**Incident date:** 2002-11-12 (2002)
**Place:** Alappuzha, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Raghavan (Sub-Inspector of Police (former))
**Victims:** Alappuzha resident
**Sentence:** Trial: 3 years RI + Rs 20,000 fine on each count. On appeal: reduced to 6 months SI (s.7) and 1 year SI (s.13) with Rs 5,000 fine each (default 1 month SI each).

The Special Judge (Vigilance), Kottayam convicted Vallikunnam Sub-Inspector Raghavan in CC 38/2008 on 03-02-2011 for demanding Rs 1,000 plus a liquor bottle (and Rs 10,000 compensation) from an Alappuzha resident on 08-11-2002 as illegal gratification to settle a criminal assault case, caught following a VACB Alappuzha trap on his 12-11-2002 complaint. The court imposed three years RI with Rs 20,000 fine on each PC Act count. The Kerala High Court (Justice P. Ubaid, Crl.A.263/2011, 23-06-2017) confirmed the conviction, finding no reason for interference, and reduced the jail terms to six months and one year simple imprisonment with Rs 5,000 fine on each count.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58914444/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-07-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-07-006)

## State vs Kerala Police Senior Civil Police Officer (SCPO 4268) (t2w4-29-001)

**Record:** t2w4-29-001
**Title:** State vs Kerala Police Senior Civil Police Officer (SCPO 4268)
**Court:** Magistrate court (exact court not stated in official list; conviction recorded via order dated 03-07-2017 of the High Court of Kerala in CC No.95/14) (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Kerala Police Senior Civil Police Officer (SCPO 4268)
**Conviction:** 3 July 2017
**Incident date:** 2011-01-01 (2011)
**Place:** Thrissur, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 406; IPC 417; IPC 418; IPC 420 r/w IPC 34; Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978 ss.3, 4, 5, 6
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Civil Police Officer (SCPO 4268), Thrissur City — Thrissur Town East Police Station, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years simple imprisonment and penalty of Rs 2,47,000

The Kerala Police official list 'Details of Police Personnel removed from service in connection with conviction in crime cases' records that SCPO 4268 \[name withheld\] (PEN 149991, Thrissur Town East Police Station) was convicted in Crime No.1971/2011 for cheating and prize-chit offences and dismissed from service with effect from 03-07-2017. The list states the conviction as 5 years simple imprisonment with a Rs 2,47,000 penalty, by order dated 03-07-2017 of the High Court of Kerala in CC No.95/14. The exact trial court is not stated in the list, and no corroborating judgment or press report was found in-session.

**Sources (1):** [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/0314ZJ03WIeq7I9grscmlUlOj5wfrbtklA5NcDya.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-29-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-29-001)

## Peroorkada PS Crime 439/2018 (t2w3-16-011)

**Record:** t2w3-16-011
**Title:** Peroorkada PS Crime 439/2018
**Court:** Special Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram district (court not named in list; Peroorkada case) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Peroorkada PS Crime 439/2018
**Conviction:** 2018
**Incident date:** 2018-01-01 (2018)
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 354A(i)(iii); POCSO Act s.7; POCSO Act s.8; POCSO Act s.9(a)(iii); POCSO Act s.9(m); POCSO Act s.11(iii)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Havildar Driver (HDR) 8836, Special Armed Police (SAP), Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years imprisonment (simple, as listed)

Kerala Police’s official removed-from-service list records that HDR 8836 \[name withheld\] (SAP) was convicted in Peroorkada PS Crime 439/2018 (s.354A(i)(iii) IPC and POCSO Act provisions) and sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment with fine, and removed from service on 20-02-2020. The list names no trial court, conviction date or appeal status; the conviction falls between 2018 and February 2020.

**Sources (2):** [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/0314ZJ03WIeq7I9grscmlUlOj5wfrbtklA5NcDya.pdf); [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/page/police-personnel-removed-from-service)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-011)

## Central Police Station Ernakulam Crime 1106/2018 (t2w3-16-012)

**Record:** t2w3-16-012
**Title:** Central Police Station Ernakulam Crime 1106/2018
**Court:** Special Court, Ernakulam (court not named in list; Central PS EKM 1106/2018 case) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Central Police Station Ernakulam Crime 1106/2018
**Conviction:** 2018
**Incident date:** 2018-01-01 (2018)
**Place:** Ernakulam, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 341; IPC 342; IPC 323; IPC 506(ii); IPC 354; POCSO Act s.9(a)(ii) r/w s.10; POCSO Act s.9(a)(iii) r/w s.10; POCSO Act s.9(c) r/w s.10
**Officers (gated display forms):** Grade Assistant Sub-Inspector (GASI) K 5854, Mundakkayam PS, Kottayam district / Central PS Ernakulam case, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 month SI (s.341) + 6 months SI (s.323) + 1 year SI + Rs 10,000 fine (s.354) + 1 year SI (s.506(ii)) + 5 years RI + Rs 15,000 fine (POCSO s.9 r/w s.10), as listed

Kerala Police’s official removed-from-service list records that GASI K 5854 \[name withheld\] was convicted in Central PS Ernakulam Crime 1106/2018 (ss.341/342/323/506(ii)/354 IPC and POCSO Act s.9 r/w s.10) with sentences ranging from 1 month SI to 5 years’ RI plus fines, and dismissed from service on 07-01-2022. The list names no trial court, conviction date or appeal status; the conviction falls between 2018 and January 2022.

**Sources (2):** [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/ZKnCGuSfApEgRg76SocCTjm9M0MMI6QFX6gcUNX3.pdf); [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/page/police-personnel-removed-from-service)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-012)

## VACB Kollam trap of 09-12-2013 (vehicle-release bribe; VC case, CC number not stated) (t2w3-16-020)

**Record:** t2w3-16-020
**Title:** VACB Kollam trap of 09-12-2013 (vehicle-release bribe; VC case, CC number not stated)
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** VACB Kollam trap of 09-12-2013 (vehicle-release bribe; VC case, CC number not stated)
**Conviction:** 27 January 2018
**Incident date:** 2013-12-09 (2013)
**Place:** Kollam (Kilikollur PS; trial at Thiruvananthapuram), Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI, former), Kilimanoor Police Station, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment + Rs 25,000 fine (Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram, Judge \[name withheld\])

Kerala VACB’s official press note dated 27-01-2018 records that former ASI of Kilimanoor Police Station was found guilty and sentenced on 27-01-2018 by the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram (Judge \[name withheld\]) to 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment with Rs 25,000 fine for taking Rs 2,700 in 2013 from Daniel in connection with a vehicle case and demanding Rs 1,000 more, caught in the Kollam VACB unit trap of 09-12-2013 led by DYSP Rex Bobby (investigation: DYSP Jayashankar R; prosecution: Biju Mohan).

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210421203655/https://www.vigilance.kerala.gov.in/public/pdf/press/press_2018/press_27-01-18.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-020)

## VACB trap of 2010 (Rs 500 vehicle-release bribe; VC case, CC number not stated) (t2w3-16-021)

**Record:** t2w3-16-021
**Title:** VACB trap of 2010 (Rs 500 vehicle-release bribe; VC case, CC number not stated)
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** VACB trap of 2010 (Rs 500 vehicle-release bribe; VC case, CC number not stated)
**Conviction:** 31 January 2018
**Incident date:** 2010-01-01 (2010)
**Place:** Ernakulam, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (former), Eloor Police Station, Ernakulam, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment + Rs 25,000 fine (Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha)

Kerala VACB’s official press note dated 31-01-2018 records that former Head Constable of Eloor Police Station (Ernakulam) was found guilty and sentenced on 31-01-2018 by the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha to 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment with Rs 25,000 fine for demanding Rs 500 from Sukumesh of Eloor to release his seized vehicle and arrested by vigilance while accepting it in 2010.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210421203655/https://www.vigilance.kerala.gov.in/public/pdf/press/press_2018/press_31-01-18.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-021)

## Sessions Case No.454/2019 (RPS Kollam Cr.No.09/2019) (t2w3-16-009)

**Record:** t2w3-16-009
**Title:** Sessions Case No.454/2019 (RPS Kollam Cr.No.09/2019)
**Court:** Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Kollam (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Case No.454/2019 (RPS Kollam Cr.No.09/2019)
**Conviction:** 2019
**Incident date:** 2019-01-01 (2019)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 354A; POCSO Act s.8 r/w s.9(I); POCSO Act s.10 r/w s.9(I)
**Officers (gated display forms):** CPO T 4641, Railway Police Station (RPS) Kollam; on working arrangement from VACB Kollam, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment under s.8 POCSO Act (Sessions Case 454/2019)

Kerala Police’s official removed-from-service list records that CPO T 4641 \[name withheld\] (RPS Kollam, then on working arrangement with VACB Kollam) was sentenced by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Kollam in SC 454/2019 (RPS Kollam Crime 09/2019, ss.354(A) IPC and ss.8/10 r/w 9(I) POCSO Act) to 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment with Rs 50,000 fine, and removed from service on 06-12-2022. The list gives no conviction date or appeal status; the conviction falls between 2019 and December 2022.

**Sources (2):** [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/y7s7ObGka88Fwe9XakWNrobqnANT9J5KWqylALUt.pdf); [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/page/police-personnel-removed-from-service)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-009)

## State (Mannar PS Crime 248/2011) vs Subash @ Manikuttan (PC A 5759) — SC No.847/2011 (murder of Alappuzha Man) (t2w2-07-010)

**Record:** t2w2-07-010
**Title:** State (Mannar PS Crime 248/2011) vs Subash @ Manikuttan (PC A 5759) — SC No.847/2011 (murder of Alappuzha Man)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State (Mannar PS Crime 248/2011) vs Subash @ Manikuttan (PC A 5759) — SC No.847/2011 (murder of Alappuzha Man)
**Conviction:** 20 March 2019
**Incident date:** 2011-05-16 (2011)
**Place:** Alappuzha, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 325; IPC 341
**Officers (gated display forms):** Subash @ Manikuttan (Police Constable (PC A 5759))
**Victims:** Alappuzha man, age 65
**Sentence:** Trial: life imprisonment + Rs 35,000 fine (default 2 years RI) for s.302; 6 months SI for s.341; no separate sentence for s.323; concurrent. On appeal: s.302 set aside, convicted u/s 325 IPC with 5 years RI + Rs 25,000 fine (default 3 months RI, payable to victim's heirs); s.341 conviction confirmed.

The 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara convicted Subash @ Manikuttan in SC 847/2011 on 29-01-2013 for murdering an Alappuzha man at Mannar on 16-05-2011, sentencing him to life imprisonment with a Rs 35,000 fine plus six months simple imprisonment for wrongful restraint; the official Kerala Police convicted-personnel list identifies the convict as Police Constable A 5759 of Alappuzha (Mannar Crime 248/2011) removed from service on 04-02-2014. The Kerala High Court (Justices A.M. Shaffique and A.M. Babu, Crl.A.418/2013, 20-03-2019) partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the s.302 murder conviction and instead convicting him under s.325 IPC (5 years RI + Rs 25,000 fine) while confirming the s.341 conviction.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8155817/); [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/0314ZJ03WIeq7I9grscmlUlOj5wfrbtklA5NcDya.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-07-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-07-010)

## VACB Malappuram trap of 28-08-2009 (Rs 500 motor-vehicle-release bribe; VC case, CC number not stated) (t2w3-16-022)

**Record:** t2w3-16-022
**Title:** VACB Malappuram trap of 28-08-2009 (Rs 500 motor-vehicle-release bribe; VC case, CC number not stated)
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** VACB Malappuram trap of 28-08-2009 (Rs 500 motor-vehicle-release bribe; VC case, CC number not stated)
**Conviction:** 29 September 2019
**Incident date:** 2009-08-28 (2009)
**Place:** Malappuram (Kottakkal PS; trial at Kozhikode), Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (former), Kokkal Police Station, Malappuram, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Malappuram man
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment + Rs 10,000 fine (Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode)

Kerala VACB’s official press note dated 29-09-2019 records that former Head Constable of Kokkal Police Station (Malappuram) was sentenced by the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode to 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment with Rs 10,000 fine for demanding Rs 500 from a Malappuram man of Malappuram on 28-08-2009 to release his motorcycle seized in a motor-vehicle case, caught the same day in the Malappuram VACB unit trap laid by DYSP P. Abdul Hameed (investigation: former Inspector of Police K.L. Radhakrishnan, Malappuram VACB unit; prosecution: Additional Legal Advisor C.\[name withheld\]).

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210421203655/https://www.vigilance.kerala.gov.in/public/pdf/press/press_2019/press_29-09-19-2.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-022)

## CBI vs Kerala Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (former) (t2-11-008)

**Record:** t2-11-008
**Title:** CBI vs Kerala Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (former)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Thiruvananthapuram (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Kerala Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (former)
**Conviction:** 26 May 2020
**Incident date:** 2011-01-01 (2011)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police (former), Kerala Police
**Victims:** Kollam man
**Sentence:** 10 years rigorous imprisonment plus Rs 25,000 fine to each convict (fine payable to complainant); two other accused acquitted

A Kerala special CBI court (Special Judge Court, Thiruvananthapuram, transferred from CJM Ernakulam on jurisdictional grounds) convicted four men including former deputy \[name withheld\] of police \[name withheld\] of the attempted murder of head constable and sentenced each to 10 years' RI with a Rs 25,000 fine payable to the complainant. The CBI proved Nair and co-convicts Jinda Ani, Container Santhosh and Penty Edwin stabbed a Kollam man multiple times with a knife in revenge for his reporting their alleged activities to the media, with one accused also manipulating records and concealing the knife. Two other accused were acquitted; only Nair among the convicts is police personnel.

**Sources (3):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzA1MQ==); [indianeconomicobserver.com](https://www.indianeconomicobserver.com/news/kerala-court-sentences-four-to-10-year-imprisonment-in-cops-attempted-murder-case20200526194154/); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/india-news-kerala-court-sentences-four-to-10-year-imprisonment-in-cops-attempted-murder-case-1780073.html/amp)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-11-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-11-008)

## Munambam PS Crime 1218/2017 (t2w3-16-010)

**Record:** t2w3-16-010
**Title:** Munambam PS Crime 1218/2017
**Court:** not stated in source list (POCSO Special Court, Ernakulam inferred from Munambam PS + POCSO sections - keep hedged or drop inference) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Munambam PS Crime 1218/2017
**Conviction:** 7 November 2020
**Incident date:** 2017-01-01 (2017)
**Place:** Ernakulam, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** POCSO Act s.9(a)(iii); POCSO Act s.10; POCSO Act s.11; POCSO Act s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Havildar 8067, Kerala Armed Police Battalion 1 (KAP-1)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years simple imprisonment (as listed)

Kerala Police’s official removed-from-service list records that Havildar 8067 \[name withheld\] (KAP-1) was convicted in Munambam PS Crime 1218/2017 under ss.9(a)(iii), 10, 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to 5 years’ simple imprisonment with Rs 25,000 fine (date shown 07-11-2020). The list names no trial court or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/0314ZJ03WIeq7I9grscmlUlOj5wfrbtklA5NcDya.pdf); [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/page/police-personnel-removed-from-service)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-010)

## Vanitha Police Station Kasargod Crime 6/2021 (t2w3-16-014)

**Record:** t2w3-16-014
**Title:** Vanitha Police Station Kasargod Crime 6/2021
**Court:** Special Court (POCSO), Kasaragod (court not named in list; Vanitha PS Kasargod 6/2021 case) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Vanitha Police Station Kasargod Crime 6/2021
**Conviction:** 2021
**Incident date:** 2021-01-01 (2021)
**Place:** Kasaragod, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 354; IPC 354A; POCSO Act s.9(a)(ii) r/w s.10; POCSO Act s.7 r/w s.8
**Officers (gated display forms):** CPO 3133, Idukki, Kerala Police (Vanitha PS Kasargod case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year SI + Rs 10,000 fine (s.354 IPC) + 6 months RI (s.354A IPC) + 3 years SI + Rs 20,000 fine (POCSO s.7 r/w s.8), as listed

Kerala Police’s official list (as on 31-10-2025) records that CPO 3133 \[name withheld\] (Idukki) was convicted in Vanitha PS Kasargod Crime 6/2021 (ss.354/354A IPC and POCSO Act) with sentences of 1 year SI, 6 months RI and 3 years SI plus fines totalling Rs 30,000, and removed from service on 21-10-2024. The list names no trial court, conviction date or appeal status; the conviction falls between 2021 and October 2024.

**Sources (2):** [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/qegCY0QLVnCcT90bv5jktczax3Iw4fhDOGgL12Ll.pdf); [keralapolice.gov.in](https://keralapolice.gov.in/page/police-personnel-removed-from-service)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-16-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-16-014)

## State (VACB Idukki) vs Ernakulam Police Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (former) (t2w2-07-008)

**Record:** t2w2-07-008
**Title:** State (VACB Idukki) vs Ernakulam Police Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (former)
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (VACB Idukki) vs Ernakulam Police Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (former)
**Conviction:** 19 March 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ernakulam, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 (section numbers not stated)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (former), Not stated (resident of Chelad, Kothamangalam, Ernakulam; prosecuted by DySP VACB Idukki)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Conviction and sentence imposed 27-02-2021 including fine (Rs 25,000 part-payment ordered toward fine on 19-03-2021); custodial quantum not stated in suspension order

The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha convicted \[name withheld\], formerly an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, in CC 138/2016 on 27-02-2021 in a VACB Idukki trap prosecution, imposing a jail sentence and fine. The Kerala High Court (Justice V.G. Arun, Crl.A.200/2021, order dated 19-03-2021) admitted his appeal, suspended execution of the sentence, and released him on bail on a Rs 50,000 bond with two sureties plus Rs 25,000 remitted toward the fine. The bribe amount, incident date, statutory sections and sentence quantum are not stated in the available suspension order, and no final appellate judgment was found on Indian Kanoon.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68464863/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-07-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-07-008)

## State vs Kerala Police Sub-Inspector (former) and others (t2-11-005)

**Record:** t2-11-005
**Title:** State vs Kerala Police Sub-Inspector (former) and others
**Court:** Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram (Special Judge Rekha R) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Kerala Police Sub-Inspector (former) and others
**Conviction:** 29 April 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** POCSO Act 2012 s.10 r/w s.9(a)(iv); IPC 354A(2) r/w 354A(1)(i)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (former), Bomb Detection Squad, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Thiruvananthapuram girl, age 16
**Sentence:** 6 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs 25,000 fine

Special Judge Rekha R of the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram found former police sub-inspector guilty of sexually assaulting a \[name withheld\] and sentenced him to six years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs 25,000 fine. The child, daughter of a deceased police constable living with her mother in the police quarters, had come to the accused's quarters seeking information for a children's club event when he put his hands around her, forced her onto his lap and demanded a kiss. The court relied on the victim's reliable testimony with the s.30 POCSO presumption, held positive career records are no evidence of good character, and convicted him for sexual assault by a police officer plus sexual harassment.

**Sources (2):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/police-pocso-536975.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kerala-court-ex-sub-inspector-jailed-minor-sexual-assault-256547)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-11-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-11-005)

## State (VACB) vs S. Navas — CC No.12/2014 (Rs 1,000 bribe for passport verification) (t2w2-07-007)

**Record:** t2w2-07-007
**Title:** State (VACB) vs S. Navas — CC No.12/2014 (Rs 1,000 bribe for passport verification)
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (VACB) vs S. Navas — CC No.12/2014 (Rs 1,000 bribe for passport verification)
**Conviction:** 26 September 2025
**Incident date:** 2012-11-23 (2012)
**Place:** Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** S. Navas (Senior Civil Police Officer (Gr) T 9170 (former))
**Victims:** Thiruvananthapuram resident
**Sentence:** Trial: 3 years SI + Rs 20,000 fine (s.7); 3 years SI + Rs 30,000 fine (s.13). On appeal: reduced to 6 months SI + Rs 10,000 (s.7, default 1 month) and 1 year SI + Rs 15,000 (s.13, default 45 days).

The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram convicted Thumba Senior Civil Police Officer S. Navas in CC 12/2014 on 26-05-2020 for demanding on 15-11-2012 and accepting on 23-11-2012 Rs 1,000 as illegal gratification from PW1 as a motive for verifying his passport application, sentencing him to three years simple imprisonment with Rs 20,000 and Rs 30,000 fines on the two PC Act counts. The Kerala High Court (Justice A. Badharudeen, Crl.A.488/2020, 26-09-2025, 2025:KER:72309) confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence to six months and one year simple imprisonment with Rs 10,000 and Rs 15,000 fines.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61881628/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-07-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-07-007)

## State (VACB) vs K. Ibrahim — CC No.19/2005 (Rs 3,000 bribe extorted from autorickshaw driver) (t2w2-07-005)

**Record:** t2w2-07-005
**Title:** State (VACB) vs K. Ibrahim — CC No.19/2005 (Rs 3,000 bribe extorted from autorickshaw driver)
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (VACB) vs K. Ibrahim — CC No.19/2005 (Rs 3,000 bribe extorted from autorickshaw driver)
**Conviction:** 19 November 2013
**Incident date:** 2003-05-12 (2003)
**Place:** Kannur, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** K. Ibrahim (Sub-Inspector of Police)
**Victims:** Kannur resident
**Sentence:** Trial: 2 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine on each count (default 1 month RI), concurrent. On appeal: reduced to 6 months RI + Rs 10,000 (s.7) and 1 year RI + Rs 10,000 (s.13).

The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode convicted Karikkottakkari Sub-Inspector K. Ibrahim in CC 19/2005 on 19-11-2013 for demanding Rs 5,000 (reduced to Rs 3,000) from an autorickshaw driver stopped at midnight on 02-05-2003, seizing his vehicle documents, repeating the demand with threats of a false case, and accepting Rs 3,000 at his quarters on 12-05-2003 in a VACB trap; the co-accused police constable (A2) was acquitted at trial for want of evidence. The court imposed two years RI with Rs 10,000 fine on each PC Act count. The Kerala High Court (Justice A. Badharudeen, Crl.A.1670/2013, 21-01-2026, 2026:KER:5210) confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum, cancelling his bail and directing surrender.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/130490866/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-07-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-07-005)

## State (VACB) vs Malappuram Police Civil Police Officer at time of offence (Grade Senior Civil Police Officer, Vadanappally PS, Thrissur, at conviction) (t2-11-002)

**Record:** t2-11-002
**Title:** State (VACB) vs Malappuram Police Civil Police Officer at time of offence (Grade Senior Civil Police Officer, Vadanappally PS, Thrissur, at conviction)
**Court:** Vigilance Court, Kozhikode (Judge Shibu Thomas) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (VACB) vs Malappuram Police Civil Police Officer at time of offence (Grade Senior Civil Police Officer, Vadanappally PS, Thrissur, at conviction)
**Conviction:** 30 January 2026
**Incident date:** 2017-01-01 (2017)
**Place:** Malappuram, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Civil Police Officer at time of offence (Grade Senior Civil Police Officer, Vadanappally PS, Thrissur, at conviction), Thenhipalam Police Station, Malappuram district (native of Ramanattukara)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI plus Rs 25,000 fine under s.7; 4 years RI plus Rs 25,000 fine under s.13(2) (total fine Rs 50,000)

Kozhikode Vigilance Court Judge Shibu Thomas convicted civil police officer of demanding and accepting a bribe in a 2017 Thenhipalam forgery case he was handling. \[name withheld\] threatened to implicate the complainant's wife as an accused, forcibly collected Rs 2,000 initially, and was caught red-handed by the VACB Northern Range team while accepting the remaining Rs 3,000 of the Rs 5,000 demand. The court found him guilty under two sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and imposed four years' rigorous imprisonment with Rs 50,000 total fine.

**Sources (2):** [vigilance.kerala.gov.in](https://vigilance.kerala.gov.in/storage/pressreleases/tD7wqjTDthlPbWhsi4ixaZ6lCd1Dd6tlBj161mYU.pdf); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3788153-civil-police-officer-sentenced-to-four-years-rigorous-imprisonment-in-bribery-case)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-11-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-11-002)

## State (VACB) vs Kerala Police Grade Sub-Inspector (former) (t2-11-001)

**Record:** t2-11-001
**Title:** State (VACB) vs Kerala Police Grade Sub-Inspector (former)
**Court:** Special Judge (Vigilance), Kollam (Judge Mohit C S) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (VACB) vs Kerala Police Grade Sub-Inspector (former)
**Conviction:** 31 January 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated (2015)
**Place:** Kollam, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Grade Sub-Inspector (former), Kerala Police (bribe taken inside police station on duty, in uniform; exact station not stated)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years imprisonment under s.7 plus 4 years under s.13, Prevention of Corruption Act, and Rs 20,000 fine

Kollam Special Judge (Vigilance) Mohit C S convicted and sentenced former grade Sub-Inspector (63) for taking a bribe to release a two-wheeler involved in a road accident and issue the FIR copy. The prosecution, led by public prosecutor Siju Rajan, proved \[name withheld\] took Rs 1,500 for the FIR copy and Rs 2,000 for releasing the vehicle, and was caught in a vigilance trap; he had also demanded bribes for registering the crime and issuing the mahazar copy. The court noted he accepted the gratification inside the police station during duty hours and in uniform, rejecting his claim of an unblemished 30-year service record.

**Sources (3):** [vigilance.kerala.gov.in](https://vigilance.kerala.gov.in/storage/pressreleases/YiC1FwylpCwkinZ1Bgx68D9gIKMkmmWNGGbbncBe.pdf); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3788495-kerala-court-sentences-ex-policeman-to-4-years-of-imprisonment-for-taking-bribe); [techwordnews.com](https://techwordnews.com/ex-si-gets-4-years-in-jail-for-taking-bribe/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-11-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-11-001)

## State (VACB Special Cell) vs Kerala Police Director General of Police (retired 31 July 2023) (t2-11-003)

**Record:** t2-11-003
**Title:** State (VACB Special Cell) vs Kerala Police Director General of Police (retired 31 July 2023)
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kottayam (Sri K.V. Rejanish) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (VACB Special Cell) vs Kerala Police Director General of Police (retired 31 July 2023)
**Conviction:** 17 September 2026
**Incident date:** 2003-01-01 (2003)
**Place:** Kottayam, Kerala
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Director General of Police (retired 31 July 2023), Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs 30,84,892 fine

The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kottayam, Sri K.V. Rejanish, found former Kerala DGP guilty in a disproportionate-assets case pending for nearly two decades and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs 30.84 lakh fine. The court held he acquired houses, flats and other properties worth Rs 64,70,891 during 01-01-2003 to 04-07-2007, 135.80% in excess of his known sources of income, rejecting his defence of family partition and gifts. \[name withheld\], who rose to DGP even as the vigilance probe progressed, is the first Kerala officer to retire as DGP and then be sentenced to imprisonment; only ex-IG \[name withheld\] preceded him as a jailed Kerala IPS officer.

**Sources (6):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/17/9562323f-28a8-41fd-bf83-db8f780bfaee-700808.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/keralam-court-former-dgp-tomin-j-thachankary-guilty-disproportionate-assets-case-550453); [hiindia.com](https://hiindia.com/keralas-former-dgp-thachankary-convicted-in-corruption-case-sentenced-to-four-years-jail-lead/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/kerala-court-sentences-ex-dgp-tomin-thachankary-to-4-years-jail-in-disproportionate-assets-case); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-government-order-further-investigation-disproportionate-assets-case-tomin-j-thachankary-302168); [nationpress.com](https://www.nationpress.com/national/kerala-ex-dgp-thachankary-convicted)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-11-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-11-003)

## State v. Madhya Pradesh Police Constable (t2w2-12-018)

**Record:** t2w2-12-018
**Title:** State v. Madhya Pradesh Police Constable
**Court:** Judicial Magistrate, Jaora (exact court and conviction date unstated in High Court judgment; s.377 trial with appeal to Additional Sessions Judge) (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Madhya Pradesh Police Constable
**Conviction:** 1985
**Incident date:** 1976-10-11 (1976)
**Place:** Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 377
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Sarafa Chowki, Jaora, District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Ratlam boy, age 16
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment + Rs 200 fine

The trial court convicted Police Constable of Sarafa Chowki, Jaora, under IPC section 377 and sentenced him to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs 200 fine for picking up 16-year-old \[name withheld\] from Jaora railway station around midnight on 11 October 1976 on the pretext that he was a suspect pickpocket, taking him to his chowki-campus quarter and committing sodomy on him, corroborated by medical evidence and the Chemical Examiner's semen finding. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted him on appeal, but on 19 January 1989 the MP High Court (V.D. Gyani, J., Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1985) accepted the \[name withheld\]'s appeal, set aside the acquittal and restored the trial court's conviction and sentence. CAVEAT: exact trial court name and conviction date not stated in the HC judgment (pre-1985).

**Sources (2):** [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48d88607dba348fff32c0); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=419891220000&title=state-of-m-p-vs-rampal-singh)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-12-018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-12-018)

## State v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar (Cr.A. No. 2/1999 MP HC; Crl. Appeal 261/2004 SC) (t2w2-12-010)

**Record:** t2w2-12-010
**Title:** State v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar (Cr.A. No. 2/1999 MP HC; Crl. Appeal 261/2004 SC)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) (Malanpur/Bhind jurisdiction; exact court unstated in SC judgment) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar (Cr.A. No. 2/1999 MP HC; Crl. Appeal 261/2004 SC)
**Conviction:** 1999
**Incident date:** 1996-08-21 (1996)
**Place:** Bhind, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Shambhu Dayal Nagar (Assistant Sub-Inspector)
**Victims:** Bhind resident
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7); 1 year RI + Rs 500 fine (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), concurrent; 2 months further RI in default of fine

The Special Judge convicted ASI Shambhu Dayal Nagar of PS Malanpur for demanding Rs 5,000 (settled at Rs 3,500) from complainant \[name withheld\] to neither seize his rifle nor arrest him and his brother in a village assault case, caught in a trap on 21 August 1996; he drew 1 year RI each under PC Act ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2). The MP High Court (Gwalior, Cr.A. 2/1999, 30 January 2003) set aside the conviction, but the Supreme Court on 2 November 2006 (Crl.A. 261/2004) restored the Special Judge's conviction and sentence on overwhelming evidence. CAVEAT: exact trial court name and conviction date not stated in the SC judgment (pre-1999).

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/312089/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-12-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-12-010)

## State (SPE Lokayukt) v. Munnalal Rajak, Special Criminal Case No. 07/2002 (Cr.A. No. 1976/2003) (t2w2-12-012)

**Record:** t2w2-12-012
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukt) v. Munnalal Rajak, Special Criminal Case No. 07/2002 (Cr.A. No. 1976/2003)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jabalpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukt) v. Munnalal Rajak, Special Criminal Case No. 07/2002 (Cr.A. No. 1976/2003)
**Conviction:** 12 November 2003
**Incident date:** 2001-06-01 (2001)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Munnalal Rajak (Constable)
**Victims:** Jabalpur resident
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs 1,000 fine (s.7); 2 years RI + Rs 1,000 fine (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), concurrent

The Special Judge (PC Act), Jabalpur, on 12 November 2003 convicted Constable Munnalal Rajak of PS Majhgawan for demanding Rs 2,000 from agriculturist a Jabalpur resident to let him off an inquiry (threatening jail if unpaid by 7 June 2001), caught in a Lokayukta trap; he drew 1 year RI under s.7 and 2 years RI under s.13(1)(d)/13(2). The MP High Court (Jabalpur, Cr.A. 1976/2003, January 2011) partly allowed the appeal: convictions and fines affirmed, but the s.13 custodial term reduced from 2 years to the 1-year statutory minimum.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175618220/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-12-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-12-012)

## State (Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w3-34-012)

**Record:** t2w3-34-012
**Title:** State (Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge, Gwalior (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** State (Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 30 January 1999
**Incident date:** 1986-12-24 (1986)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d) r/w s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Gola Ka Mandir Police Station, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI under IPC s.161 and 1 year RI under PC Act s.5(1)(d)/5(2)

Head Constable of Gwalior (MP Police) demanded Rs.100 from complainant \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] to help get him bailed out in a case under IPC ss.506/382/341, and was caught red-handed in a Lokayukta trap at Thatipur Chouraha on 24.12.1986 after accepting two Rs.50 notes. The Special Judge, Gwalior convicted him on 30.01.1999 under IPC s.161 and PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d)/5(2) and sentenced him to one year's RI on each count; he was dismissed from service on 31.05.1999. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed his appeal on 25.11.2005, maintaining the conviction and sentence.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1746213/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22751859/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-34-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-34-012)

## State (Lokayukt) v. Rajkumar Jaiswal, Special Case No. 4/2004 (Cr.A. No. 2276/2007) (t2w2-12-009)

**Record:** t2w2-12-009
**Title:** State (Lokayukt) v. Rajkumar Jaiswal, Special Case No. 4/2004 (Cr.A. No. 2276/2007)
**Court:** Special Judge, Damoh (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (Lokayukt) v. Rajkumar Jaiswal, Special Case No. 4/2004 (Cr.A. No. 2276/2007)
**Conviction:** 16 October 2007
**Incident date:** 2003-05-12 (2003)
**Place:** Damoh, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(ii) r/w 13(2); IPC 420; IPC 388
**Officers (gated display forms):** Rajkumar Jaiswal (Deputy Superintendent of Police)
**Victims:** Damoh resident
**Sentence:** 6 months RI + Rs 500 (s.7); 2 years RI + Rs 1,000 each (PC Act 13(1)(d)(ii)/13(2), IPC 420, IPC 388), concurrent

The Special Judge, Damoh, on 16 October 2007 convicted DySP Rajkumar Jaiswal of the SC Welfare Cell for demanding a Rs 1 lakh bribe from a Damoh resident, threatening to implicate him in a sex-scandal/gang-rape case (crime 240/2003) he was investigating, sentencing him under PC Act ss.7 and 13(1)(d)(ii)/13(2) and IPC ss.420 and 388. On 2 May 2017 a Division Bench of the MP High Court (Jabalpur, Cr.A. 2276/2007) affirmed the conviction and directed him to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159817409/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-12-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-12-009)

## CBI v. Railway Protection Force Sub-Inspector and others (t2w4-24-003)

**Record:** t2w4-24-003
**Title:** CBI v. Railway Protection Force Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bhopal (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Railway Protection Force Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 4 September 2015
**Incident date:** 2010-04-16 (2010)
**Place:** Narmadapuram, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Out Post Hoshangabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine

The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bhopal convicted RPF Sub-Inspector of Out Post Hoshangabad for demanding and accepting a Rs.1,500 bribe from a railway-station \[name withheld\] on 16.04.2010 to allow him to vend and not take action against him (case registered 16.04.2010, chargesheet 28.06.2010). He was sentenced to 3 years RI with Rs.10,000 fine. (The same press release separately reports a 3-year sentence to a Union Bank of India Branch Manager in an unrelated bribery case; only the police row is recorded here.)

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjAwMQ==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-24-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-24-003)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-001)

**Record:** t2w4-33-001
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Gwalior division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 5 January 2016
**Incident date:** 2013-07-19 (2013)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 (sections not stated in list; TRAP case)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Gwalior division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment, fine Rs.5,000 (section-wise split not legible in list)

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 844, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 05-01-2016 in SPE Gwalior Crime No.219/2013 (TRAP, registered 2013-07-19), with punishment of 4 years imprisonment and fine Rs.5,000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-001)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others (t2w4-33-002)

**Record:** t2w4-33-002
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Rewa division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 30 January 2016
**Incident date:** 2013-09-12 (2013)
**Place:** Rewa, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Rewa division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (sections as listed), fine Rs.25000 (section-wise split truncated in list)

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 881, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 30-1-2016 in SPE Rewa Crime No.290/13 (TRAP, registered 2013-09-12), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (sections as listed), fine Rs.25000 (section-wise split truncated in list). The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-002)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-003)

**Record:** t2w4-33-003
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 3 February 2016
**Incident date:** 2013-10-01 (2013)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI, fine Rs.5,000 (section-wise split truncated in list)

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 863, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 03-02-2016 in SPE Indore Crime No.207/2013 (TRAP, registered 2013-10-01), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (sections as listed), fine Rs.5000 (section-wise split truncated in list). The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-003)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-004)

**Record:** t2w4-33-004
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Sagar division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 16 June 2016
**Incident date:** 2013-07-02 (2013)
**Place:** Sagar, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Sagar division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7), fine Rs.10,000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 910, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 16-6-2016 in SPE Sagar Crime No.149/2012 (TRAP, registered 2013-07-02), with punishment of 1 year RI (s.7) and fine Rs.10,000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-004)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-005)

**Record:** t2w4-33-005
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 5 July 2016
**Incident date:** 2013-10-22 (2013)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.2000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 914, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 05-7-2016 in SPE Indore Crime No.348/2013 (TRAP, registered 2013-10-22), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.2000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-005)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence) (t2w4-33-006)

**Record:** t2w4-33-006
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Sagar division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 25 July 2016
**Incident date:** 2013-06-02 (2013)
**Place:** Sagar, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence), Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Sagar division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year(s) RI (s.7) + 2 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.2000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 918, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Asst. Sub Inspector (At Time Of Offence) (at time of offence), was convicted on 25-7-2016 in SPE Sagar Crime No.149/2013 (TRAP, registered 2013-06-02), with punishment of 1 year(s) RI (s.7) + 2 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.2000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-006)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-007)

**Record:** t2w4-33-007
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Ujjain division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 28 July 2016
**Incident date:** 2014-01-04 (2014)
**Place:** Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Ujjain division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year(s) RI (s.7) + 2 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.50000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 917, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 28-7-2016 in SPE Ujjain Crime No.07/2014 (TRAP, registered 2014-01-04), with punishment of 1 year(s) RI (s.7) + 2 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.50000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-007)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-008)

**Record:** t2w4-33-008
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Gwalior division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 7 October 2016
**Incident date:** 2014-04-04 (2014)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Gwalior division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.5000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 942, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 07-10-2016 in SPE Gwalior Crime No.141/2014 (TRAP, registered 2014-04-04), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.5000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-008)

## State (SPE Lokayukt) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Investigating police officer (filed challan in NDPS Cr. Case No. 237/2014; exact rank not stated in High Court order) (t2w3-17-010)

**Record:** t2w3-17-010
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukt) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Investigating police officer (filed challan in NDPS Cr. Case No. 237/2014; exact rank not stated in High Court order)
**Court:** Special Judge, Dewas (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukt) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Investigating police officer (filed challan in NDPS Cr. Case No. 237/2014; exact rank not stated in High Court order)
**Conviction:** 19 October 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dewas, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act s.7; PC Act s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Investigating police officer (filed challan in NDPS Cr. Case No. 237/2014; exact rank not stated in High Court order), Madhya Pradesh Police, Dewas jurisdiction
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 2,000 fine (s.7); 4 years RI + Rs 2,000 fine (s.13(2)), with default clause

The Special Judge, Dewas, on 19 October 2016 convicted \[name withheld\] — the investigating officer who had filed the challan in an NDPS case (Cr. Case No. 237/2014) — for demanding a Rs 5,000 bribe for submitting the challan, sentencing him to 4 years RI each under PC Act s.7 and s.13(2) with Rs 2,000 fines. On 26 October 2016 the MP High Court (CRA-1456-2016) suspended the sentence and admitted the appeal, noting defence arguments of contradictions and a missing section 65B Evidence Act certificate; the appeal remains pending. CAVEAT: officer's exact rank/posting and complainant details are not stated in the HC suspension order; police status inferred from challan-filing role.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/72451758/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-17-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-17-010)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-009)

**Record:** t2w4-33-009
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Bhopal division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 24 October 2016
**Incident date:** 2016-05-23 (2016)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Bhopal division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7), fine Rs.2500

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 951, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 24-10-2016 in SPE Bhopal Crime No.139/13 (TRAP, registered 2016-05-23), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7), fine Rs.2500. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-009)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-010)

**Record:** t2w4-33-010
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Ujjain division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 30 November 2016
**Incident date:** 2014-06-13 (2014)
**Place:** Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Ujjain division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 958, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2016-11-30 in SPE Ujjain Crime No.252/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-06-13), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-010)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-011)

**Record:** t2w4-33-011
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Rewa division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 27 December 2016
**Incident date:** 2014-09-08 (2014)
**Place:** Rewa, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Rewa division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.25000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 990, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 27-12-2016 in SPE Rewa Crime No.408/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-09-08), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.25000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-011)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-012)

**Record:** t2w4-33-012
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Jabalpur division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 27 December 2016
**Incident date:** 2015-07-17 (2015)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Jabalpur division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 967, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 27-12-2016 in SPE Jabalpur Crime No.307/2015 (TRAP, registered 2015-07-17), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-012)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-013)

**Record:** t2w4-33-013
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 31 December 2016
**Incident date:** 2014-06-27 (2014)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.2000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 973, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 31-12-2016 in SPE Indore Crime No.279/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-06-27), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.2000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-013)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-014)

**Record:** t2w4-33-014
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Jabalpur division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 7 January 2017
**Incident date:** 2014-02-27 (2014)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Jabalpur division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.50000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 965, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 07-01-2017 in SPE Jabalpur Crime No.93/2014 (TRAP, registered 2014-02-27), with punishment of 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.50000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-014)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-015)

**Record:** t2w4-33-015
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Bhopal division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 31 March 2017
**Incident date:** 2015-03-09 (2015)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Bhopal division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 992, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 31-03-2017 in SPE Bhopal Crime No.69/15 (TRAP, registered 2015-03-09), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-015)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-016)

**Record:** t2w4-33-016
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Bhopal division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 20 April 2017
**Incident date:** 2010-02-10 (2010)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Bhopal division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1012, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 20-4-2017 in SPE Bhopal Crime No.16/10 (TRAP, registered 2010-02-10), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-016)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-018)

**Record:** t2w4-33-018
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 26 May 2017
**Incident date:** 2014-08-19 (2014)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1008, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 26-5-2017 in SPE Indore Crime No.375/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-08-19), with punishment of 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-018)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-019)

**Record:** t2w4-33-019
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 6 July 2017
**Incident date:** 2014-06-18 (2014)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.1000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1027, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 06-7-2017 in SPE Indore Crime No.254/2014 (TRAP, registered 2014-06-18), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.1000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-019)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable and others (t2w4-33-020)

**Record:** t2w4-33-020
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 17 July 2017
**Incident date:** 2012-03-31 (2012)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI, fine Rs.50,000 (joint trial; section-wise split truncated in list)

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1021, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 2017-07-17 in SPE Indore Crime No.65/2012 (TRAP, registered 2012-03-31), with punishment of 3 years RI, fine Rs.50,000 (joint trial; section-wise split truncated in list). The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-020)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others (t2w4-33-021)

**Record:** t2w4-33-021
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 17 July 2017
**Incident date:** 2012-03-31 (2012)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI, fine Rs.50,000 (joint trial; section-wise split truncated in list)

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1021, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2017-07-17 in SPE Indore Crime No.65/2012 (TRAP, registered 2012-03-31), with punishment of 3 years RI, fine Rs.50,000 (joint trial; section-wise split truncated in list). The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-021)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Constable (t2w4-33-022)

**Record:** t2w4-33-022
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Bhopal division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Constable
**Conviction:** 31 July 2017
**Incident date:** 2013-12-27 (2013)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Bhopal division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.6000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1060, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Constable, was convicted on 31-7-2017 in SPE Bhopal Crime No.515/13 (TRAP, registered 2013-12-27), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.6000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-022)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-023)

**Record:** t2w4-33-023
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 31 July 2017
**Incident date:** 2013-08-10 (2013)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year(s) RI (s.7) + 1 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.1500

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1033, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 31-07-2017 in SPE Indore Crime No.250/2013 (TRAP, registered 2013-08-10), with punishment of 1 year(s) RI (s.7) + 1 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.1500. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-023)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-024)

**Record:** t2w4-33-024
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Jabalpur division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 29 August 2017
**Incident date:** 2014-01-12 (2014)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Jabalpur division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1029, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 29-08-2017 in SPE Jabalpur Crime No.26/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-01-12), with punishment of 2 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-024)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-025)

**Record:** t2w4-33-025
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 15 September 2017
**Incident date:** 2014-12-23 (2014)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.30000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1047, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 15-9-2017 in SPE Indore Crime No.550/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-12-23), with punishment of 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.30000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-025)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-026)

**Record:** t2w4-33-026
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 26 September 2017
**Incident date:** 2015-08-19 (2015)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.1000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1065, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 26-9-2017 in SPE Indore Crime No.381/15 (TRAP, registered 2015-08-19), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.1000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-026)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-027)

**Record:** t2w4-33-027
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Ujjain division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 31 October 2017
**Incident date:** 2015-04-11 (2015)
**Place:** Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Ujjain division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1066, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 31-10-2017 in SPE Ujjain Crime No.124/15 (TRAP, registered 2015-04-11), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-027)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (at time of offence) and others (t2w4-33-028)

**Record:** t2w4-33-028
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (at time of offence) and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (at time of offence) and others
**Conviction:** 23 November 2017
**Incident date:** 2014-03-31 (2014)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (at time of offence), Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.40000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1077, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\], Head Constable (At Time Of Offence) (at time of offence), was convicted on 23-11-2017 in SPE Indore Crime No.137/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-03-31), with punishment of 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.40000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-028)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-029)

**Record:** t2w4-33-029
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Ujjain division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 30 November 2017
**Incident date:** 2014-05-03 (2014)
**Place:** Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Ujjain division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1055, updated 31 December 2017) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 30-11-2017 in SPE Ujjain Crime No.179/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-05-03), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-029)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-030)

**Record:** t2w4-33-030
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Jabalpur division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 12 January 2018
**Incident date:** 2014-08-08 (2014)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Jabalpur division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (sections as listed), fine Rs.7000 (section-wise split truncated in list)

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1081, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-01-12 in SPE Jabalpur Crime No.352/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-08-08), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (sections as listed), fine Rs.7000 (section-wise split truncated in list). The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2018/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-030)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-031)

**Record:** t2w4-33-031
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Ujjain division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 12 January 2018
**Incident date:** 2015-10-10 (2015)
**Place:** Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Ujjain division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1080, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 2018-01-12 in SPE Ujjain Crime No.493/15 (TRAP, registered 2015-10-10), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-031)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable and others (t2w4-33-032)

**Record:** t2w4-33-032
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 16 January 2018
**Incident date:** 2014-01-26 (2014)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.40000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1092, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 2018-01-16 in SPE Indore Crime No.49/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-01-26), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.40000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-032)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-033)

**Record:** t2w4-33-033
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Sagar division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 24 January 2018
**Incident date:** 2014-11-26 (2014)
**Place:** Sagar, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Sagar division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1089, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 2018-01-24 in SPE Sagar Crime No.503/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-11-26), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-033)

## State (SPE Lokayukt) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Not stated (confirmed police personnel, Police Department) (t2w3-17-012)

**Record:** t2w3-17-012
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukt) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Not stated (confirmed police personnel, Police Department)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) (place not stated in High Court orders; SPE Lokayukt case, Gwalior Bench region) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukt) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Not stated (confirmed police personnel, Police Department)
**Conviction:** 14 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Unknown (appeal before Gwalior Bench; trial-court place not stated), Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Not stated (confirmed police personnel, Police Department), Madhya Pradesh Police (exact posting not stated)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine (s.7, 6 months default); 5 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine (s.13(1)(d)/13(2), 6 months default)

The Special Judge (PC Act) convicted police personnel \[name withheld\] under PC Act s.7 and s.13(1)(d)/13(2) in an SPE Lokayukt trap case where tainted notes were kept on a table and his hand-wash and pant-pocket wash turned pink in phenolphthalein solution, sentencing him to 5 years RI on each count with Rs 10,000 fines; the complainant turned hostile on identity but admitted keeping the money on the table on one Dewan's instructions for release on bail in a bailable offence. The MP High Court (CRA 4625/2017) refused suspension on 14 March 2018 but suspended the remaining sentence on 7 July 2020 noting he was in jail since 27 September 2017; the appeal remains pending. CAVEAT: trial-court name/place, officer rank/posting and complainant details are not stated in the HC orders; conviction date inferred from 'in jail from 27/09/2017'.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158463590/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7805258/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-17-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-17-012)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-034)

**Record:** t2w4-33-034
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Gwalior division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 23 May 2018
**Incident date:** 2014-09-28 (2014)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Gwalior division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.2000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1115, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable (printed "HEAS CONSTABLE" in list), was convicted on 2018-05-23 in SPE Gwalior Crime No.439/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-09-28), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.2000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-034)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-035)

**Record:** t2w4-33-035
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Sagar division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 26 June 2018
**Incident date:** 2014-07-21 (2014)
**Place:** Sagar, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Sagar division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1126, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 2018-06-26 in SPE Sagar Crime No.333/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-07-21), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-035)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-036)

**Record:** t2w4-33-036
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 10 July 2018
**Incident date:** 2013-12-05 (2013)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.1000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1138, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-07-10 in SPE Indore Crime No.431/13 (TRAP, registered 2013-12-05), with punishment of 2 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.1000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-036)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-037)

**Record:** t2w4-33-037
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Jabalpur division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 20 August 2018
**Incident date:** 2013-12-31 (2013)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Jabalpur division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.5000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1133, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-08-20 in SPE Jabalpur Crime No.541/2013 (TRAP, registered 2013-12-31), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.5000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-037)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others (t2w4-33-038)

**Record:** t2w4-33-038
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 24 August 2018
**Incident date:** 2016-03-28 (2016)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20,000 (joint trial)

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1143, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-08-24 in SPE Indore Crime No.101/16 (TRAP, registered 2016-03-28), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20,000 (joint trial). The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-038)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector and others (t2w4-33-039)

**Record:** t2w4-33-039
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 24 August 2018
**Incident date:** 2016-03-28 (2016)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20,000 (joint trial)

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1143, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-08-24 in SPE Indore Crime No.101/16 (TRAP, registered 2016-03-28), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20,000 (joint trial). The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-039)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others (t2w4-33-040)

**Record:** t2w4-33-040
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 31 August 2018
**Incident date:** 2014-02-01 (2014)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1278, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-08-31 in SPE Indore Crime No.58/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-02-01), with punishment of 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-040)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-041)

**Record:** t2w4-33-041
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Rewa division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 7 September 2018
**Incident date:** 2013-06-20 (2013)
**Place:** Rewa, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Rewa division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.1000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1141, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 2018-09-07 in SPE Rewa Crime No.171/13 (TRAP, registered 2013-06-20), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.1000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-041](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-041)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-042)

**Record:** t2w4-33-042
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Ujjain division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 24 September 2018
**Incident date:** 2013-07-05 (2013)
**Place:** Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Ujjain division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1159, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-09-24 in SPE Ujjain Crime No.200/13 (TRAP, registered 2013-07-05), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.4000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-042](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-042)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-043)

**Record:** t2w4-33-043
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 6 October 2018
**Incident date:** 2014-12-16 (2014)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.900

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1168, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-10-06 in SPE Indore Crime No.531/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-12-16), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.900. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-043](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-043)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-044)

**Record:** t2w4-33-044
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Gwalior division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 13 October 2018
**Incident date:** 2014-06-26 (2014)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Gwalior division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.2000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1172, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-10-13 in SPE Gwalior Crime No.275/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-06-26), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.2000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-044](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-044)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-045)

**Record:** t2w4-33-045
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Bhopal division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 13 October 2018
**Incident date:** 2018-09-16 (2018)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Bhopal division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1162, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-10-13 in SPE Bhopal Crime No.420/14 (TRAP, registered 2018-09-16), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-045](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-045)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-046)

**Record:** t2w4-33-046
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Gwalior division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 15 October 2018
**Incident date:** 2013-09-26 (2013)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Gwalior division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1219, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-10-15 in SPE Gwalior Crime No.316/13 (TRAP, registered 2013-09-26), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-046](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-046)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-047)

**Record:** t2w4-33-047
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 25 October 2018
**Incident date:** 2014-07-11 (2014)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.8000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1189, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-10-25 in SPE Indore Crime No.312/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-07-11), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.8000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-047](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-047)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence) (t2w4-33-048)

**Record:** t2w4-33-048
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Rewa division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 31 October 2018
**Incident date:** 2014-08-30 (2014)
**Place:** Rewa, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence), Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Rewa division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1171, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Asst. Sub Inspector (At Time Of Offence) (at time of offence), was convicted on 2018-10-31 in SPE Rewa Crime No.388/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-08-30), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-048](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-048)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-049)

**Record:** t2w4-33-049
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Gwalior division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 31 October 2018
**Incident date:** 2015-08-02 (2015)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Gwalior division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.?

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1213, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-10-31 in SPE Gwalior Crime No.345/15 (TRAP, registered 2015-08-02), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.?. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-049](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-049)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-050)

**Record:** t2w4-33-050
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Jabalpur division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 31 October 2018
**Incident date:** 2015-08-07 (2015)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Jabalpur division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.6000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1216, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-10-31 in SPE Jabalpur Crime No.352/15 (TRAP, registered 2015-08-07), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.6000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-050](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-050)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-051)

**Record:** t2w4-33-051
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Jabalpur division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 26 November 2018
**Incident date:** 2014-04-30 (2014)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Jabalpur division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.30000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1206, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-11-26 in SPE Jabalpur Crime No.166/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-04-30), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.30000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-051](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-051)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-052)

**Record:** t2w4-33-052
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Rewa division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 4 December 2018
**Incident date:** 2014-05-05 (2014)
**Place:** Rewa, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Rewa division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1192, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 2018-12-04 in SPE Rewa Crime No.182/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-05-05), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-052](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-052)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-053)

**Record:** t2w4-33-053
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 10 December 2018
**Incident date:** 2016-03-01 (2016)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 year(s) RI (s.7) + 2 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.5000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1281, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-12-10 in SPE Indore Crime No.70/2016 (TRAP, registered 2016-03-01), with punishment of 2 year(s) RI (s.7) + 2 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.5000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-053](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-053)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-054)

**Record:** t2w4-33-054
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 13 December 2018
**Incident date:** 2015-09-20 (2015)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.30000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1228, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-12-13 in SPE Indore Crime No.63/14 (TRAP, registered 2015-09-20), with punishment of 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.30000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-054](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-054)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector and others (t2w4-33-055)

**Record:** t2w4-33-055
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 21 December 2018
**Incident date:** 2015-04-05 (2015)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.2000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1274, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-12-21 in SPE Indore Crime No.116/15 (TRAP, registered 2015-04-05), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.2000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-055](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-055)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-14-002)

**Record:** t2w4-14-002
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Lokayukta), Jabalpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 24 December 2018
**Incident date:** 2015-07-03 (2015)
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(ii) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Station Shahpura Bhitoni, District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Jabalpur resident
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs.3,000 fine (single sentence by virtue of IPC s.71; 1 month RI default)

The Special Judge (Lokayukta) Jabalpur on 24 December 2018 convicted \[name withheld\], posted at PS Shahpura Bhitoni (the arrest-warrant register shows the complainant's warrant entrusted to Head Constable. 1901), who took Rs.3,000 and demanded Rs.2,000 more from complainant \[name withheld\] under threat of rearrest in a cheque-bounce warrant matter, in a 3 July 2015 SPE Lokayukta trap (Crime No. 284/2015); he drew 4 years RI with Rs.3,000 fine. On 18 December 2025 the MP High Court dismissed his appeal (CRA-9915-2018), affirmed conviction and sentence, cancelled his bail bonds and ordered him taken into custody.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93682565/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-14-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-14-002)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-056)

**Record:** t2w4-33-056
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Sagar division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 24 December 2018
**Incident date:** 2016-03-16 (2016)
**Place:** Sagar, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Sagar division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.6000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1250, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2018-12-24 in SPE Sagar Crime No.88/16 (TRAP, registered 2016-03-16), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.6000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-056](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-056)

## State (Lokayukt Establishment) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w3-17-004)

**Record:** t2w3-17-004
**Title:** State (Lokayukt Establishment) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Seoni (inferred from PS Kotwali Seoni jurisdiction; HC bail order dates the judgment 13.12.2018 without naming the court) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (Lokayukt Establishment) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 16 January 2019
**Incident date:** 2016-03-04 (2016)
**Place:** Seoni, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Kotwali, District Seoni, Madhya Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Seoni woman
**Sentence:** 4 years effective rigorous imprisonment + Rs 10,000 fine with default stipulation

ASI of PS Kotwali Seoni was convicted under PC Act ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) for demanding Rs 4,000 and receiving Rs 2,000 on 4 March 2016 from complainant \[name withheld\] for acting on her FIR, with the prosecution alleging he had already taken Rs 1 lakh from her in the same matter; he drew an effective 4 years RI with a Rs 10,000 fine. On 16 January 2019 the MP High Court (CRA 45/2019) suspended the sentence and granted bail, noting the demand transcription showed no specific bribe demand; the appeal remains pending. CAVEAT: trial-court name and conviction date are per the HC bail order's reference (judgment dated 13.12.2018); the trial judgment itself is not online.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125201007/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-17-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-17-004)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-057)

**Record:** t2w4-33-057
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 18 January 2019
**Incident date:** 2013-10-24 (2013)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (sections as listed), fine Rs.20000 (section-wise split truncated in list)

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1304, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2019-01-18 in SPE Indore Crime No.352/13 (TRAP, registered 2013-10-24), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (sections as listed), fine Rs.20000 (section-wise split truncated in list). The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-057](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-057)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-058)

**Record:** t2w4-33-058
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 18 January 2019
**Incident date:** 2014-05-14 (2014)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.30000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1306, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2019-01-18 in SPE Indore Crime No.187/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-05-14), with punishment of 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.30000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-058](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-058)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-059)

**Record:** t2w4-33-059
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 31 January 2019
**Incident date:** 2016-02-20 (2016)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.6000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1305, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2019-01-31 in SPE Indore Crime No.59/16 (TRAP, registered 2016-02-20), with punishment of 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.6000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-059](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-059)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Inspector (t2w4-33-060)

**Record:** t2w4-33-060
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Sagar division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Inspector
**Conviction:** 27 February 2019
**Incident date:** 2014-07-10 (2014)
**Place:** Sagar, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Sagar division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.50000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1358, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Inspector, was convicted on 2019-02-27 in SPE Sagar Crime No.306/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-07-10), with punishment of 5 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.50000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821id_/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-060](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-060)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (at time of offence) (t2w4-33-061)

**Record:** t2w4-33-061
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Sagar division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 28 February 2019
**Incident date:** 2015-08-05 (2015)
**Place:** Sagar, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (at time of offence), Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Sagar division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1288, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Sub Inspector (At Time Of Offence) (at time of offence), was convicted on 2019-02-28 in SPE Sagar Crime No.350/15 (TRAP, registered 2015-08-05), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-061](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-061)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-14-001)

**Record:** t2w4-14-001
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Sagar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 20 March 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sagar, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Surkhi, District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Sagar resident
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine (s.7, 3 months RI default); 4 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine (s.13(1)(d)/13(2), 3 months RI default)

The Special Judge (PC Act) Sagar on 20 March 2019 convicted ASI of PS Surkhi, who demanded Rs.25,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] for removing his and his brother's names from an FIR and was caught red-handed taking Rs.5,000 in an SPE Lokayukta trap (Spl Case LOK/15/2016); he drew 4 years RI with Rs.10,000 fine on each of the s.7 and s.13(1)(d)/13(2) counts. On 25 April 2019 the MP High Court suspended the custodial sentence and granted bail pending appeal (CRA-2758-2019).

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196083929/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-14-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-14-001)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector and others (t2w4-33-062)

**Record:** t2w4-33-062
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Ujjain division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 27 March 2019
**Incident date:** 2013-12-30 (2013)
**Place:** Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Ujjain division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.5000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1333, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2019-03-27 in SPE Ujjain Crime No.527/13 (TRAP, registered 2013-12-30), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.5000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-062](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-062)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (at time of offence) (t2w4-33-063)

**Record:** t2w4-33-063
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Bhopal division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 28 March 2019
**Incident date:** 2015-03-04 (2015)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (at time of offence), Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Bhopal division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1337, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Sub Inspector (At Time Of Offence) (at time of offence), was convicted on 2019-03-28 in SPE Bhopal Crime No.65/15 (TRAP, registered 2015-03-04), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-063](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-063)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (at time of offence) (t2w4-33-064)

**Record:** t2w4-33-064
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Bhopal division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 30 March 2019
**Incident date:** 2015-02-27 (2015)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (at time of offence), Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Bhopal division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1336, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable (At Time Of Offence) (at time of offence), was convicted on 2019-03-30 in SPE Bhopal Crime No.59/15 (TRAP, registered 2015-02-27), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-064](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-064)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-065)

**Record:** t2w4-33-065
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Sagar division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 24 April 2019
**Incident date:** 2016-07-25 (2016)
**Place:** Sagar, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Sagar division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.?

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1357, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2019-04-24 in SPE Sagar Crime No.235/16 (TRAP, registered 2016-07-25), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.?. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-065](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-065)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others (t2w4-33-066)

**Record:** t2w4-33-066
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Bhopal division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 30 April 2019
**Incident date:** 2013-12-19 (2013)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Bhopal division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1349, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2019-04-30 in SPE Bhopal Crime No.478/13 (TRAP, registered 2013-12-19), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-066](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-066)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Inspector (t2w4-33-067)

**Record:** t2w4-33-067
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Bhopal division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Inspector
**Conviction:** 30 May 2019
**Incident date:** 2014-06-27 (2014)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Bhopal division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.25000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1350, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Inspector, was convicted on 2019-05-30 in SPE Bhopal Crime No.282/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-06-27), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.25000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-067](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-067)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Constable (at time of offence) (t2w4-33-068)

**Record:** t2w4-33-068
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Constable (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Bhopal division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Constable (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 31 July 2019
**Incident date:** 2013-09-21 (2013)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (at time of offence), Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Bhopal division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.40000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1405, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Constable (At Time Of Offence) (at time of offence), was convicted on 2019-07-31 in SPE Bhopal Crime No.301/13 (TRAP, registered 2013-09-21), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.40000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-068](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-068)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-069)

**Record:** t2w4-33-069
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Indore division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 31 August 2019
**Incident date:** 2015-08-26 (2015)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Indore division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1428, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2019-08-31 in SPE Indore Crime No.328/15 (TRAP, registered 2015-08-26), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.20000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-069](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-069)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w4-33-070)

**Record:** t2w4-33-070
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Gwalior division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 11 September 2019
**Incident date:** 2015-05-21 (2015)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Gwalior division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.5000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1436, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Head Constable, was convicted on 2019-09-11 in SPE Gwalior Crime No.332/14 (TRAP, registered 2015-05-21), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.5000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-070](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-070)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector and others (t2w4-33-071)

**Record:** t2w4-33-071
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Bhopal division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 23 September 2019
**Incident date:** 2015-07-30 (2015)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Bhopal division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.5000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1422, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2019-09-23 in SPE Bhopal Crime No.333/15 (TRAP, registered 2015-07-30), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 3 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.5000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-071](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-071)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence) (t2w4-33-072)

**Record:** t2w4-33-072
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Bhopal division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 27 September 2019
**Incident date:** 2014-09-24 (2014)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence), Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Bhopal division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1460, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Asst. Sub Inspector (At Time Of Offence) (at time of offence), was convicted on 2019-09-27 in SPE Bhopal Crime No.428/14 (TRAP, registered 2014-09-24), with punishment of 4 year(s) RI (s.7) + 5 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-072](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-072)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w4-33-073)

**Record:** t2w4-33-073
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Gwalior division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 5 October 2019
**Incident date:** 2017-05-16 (2017)
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Gwalior division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1471, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted on 2019-10-05 in SPE Gwalior Crime No.85/16 (TRAP, registered 2017-05-16), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-073](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-073)

## State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence) (t2w4-33-074)

**Record:** t2w4-33-074
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), SPE Rewa division (city not stated in official list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 17 October 2019
**Incident date:** 2013-07-18 (2013)
**Place:** Rewa, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence), Madhya Pradesh Police (SPE Rewa division case)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000

The MP Lokayukta SPE punishment-cases list (serial 1466, updated 31 December 2019) records that \[name withheld\], Asst. Sub Inspector (At Time Of Offence) (at time of offence), was convicted on 2019-10-17 in SPE Rewa Crime No.214/13 (TRAP, registered 2013-07-18), with punishment of 3 year(s) RI (s.7) + 4 year(s) RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with fine Rs.10000. The list does not \[name withheld\] the convicting Special Judge's city, the complainant, or appeal status.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2019/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20200205203821/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/case_spl_police.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-074](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-074)

## CBI v. RPF Sub-Inspector (then SI, Incharge) (t2-13-034)

**Record:** t2-13-034
**Title:** CBI v. RPF Sub-Inspector (then SI, Incharge)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jabalpur (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. RPF Sub-Inspector (then SI, Incharge)
**Conviction:** 24 December 2019
**Incident date:** 2012-10-29 (2012)
**Place:** Rewa, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (then SI, Incharge), RPF Out-Post, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 7 years + fine Rs 2,50,000

The Special Judge, CBI Jabalpur convicted RPF Sub-Inspector for demanding Rs 10 lakh from a Satna scrap-yard owner to not foist a railway-cable theft case on him, sentencing him to 7 years' RI. After negotiation to two instalments, he accepted Rs 2 lakh on 29.10.2012; the CBI chargesheeted him that December. RPF is a railway police force; included as police personnel per broad construction.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/Mjg4MQ==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-034)

## State (EOW) v. Madhya Pradesh Police IPS, former Additional Director General (Prisons) (t2w2-12-002)

**Record:** t2w2-12-002
**Title:** State (EOW) v. Madhya Pradesh Police IPS, former Additional Director General (Prisons)
**Court:** Special Court, Bhopal (Additional Sessions Judge S. Pandey) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (EOW) v. Madhya Pradesh Police IPS, former Additional Director General (Prisons)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2020
**Incident date:** 2003-01-01 (2003)
**Place:** Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 420; IPC 120; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** IPS, former Additional Director General (Prisons), Madhya Pradesh Police / Prisons Department
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years imprisonment + Rs 8.75 lakh fine

Additional Sessions Judge S. Pandey at a Bhopal special court sentenced former IPS officer to five years' imprisonment for accepting over Rs 12 lakh in bribes between January and May 2003 while serving as Additional Director General (Prisons), on false promises of appointing people as jail wardens. A complaint was lodged with the Economic Offences Wing in 2006. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 8.75 lakh.

**Sources (2):** [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/former-ips-gets-5-yr-jail-in-mp-job-scam-case-1474706.html/amp); [Courtkutchehry.com](https://www.Courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1047088/rajendra-chaturvedi-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-12-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-12-002)

## State (SPE Lokayukt Ujjain) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) (t2w3-17-002)

**Record:** t2w3-17-002
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukt Ujjain) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) (SPE Lokayukt Ujjain case; trial-court place not stated in High Court order) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukt Ujjain) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.)
**Conviction:** 8 May 2020
**Incident date:** 2013-12-15 (2013)
**Place:** Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.), AJAK Police Station, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Ujjain man
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 7,000 fine (s.7); 4 years RI + Rs 7,000 fine (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)); 2 months SI in default of each fine

The Special Judge convicted DySP \[name withheld\], then investigating an SC/ST Act case at AJAK Police Station Ujjain, for demanding Rs 50,000 from a Ujjain man to not enhance charges and to help in a bail application, caught in an SPE Lokayukt Ujjain trap with tainted notes under a file on his table; he drew 4 years RI each under PC Act s.7 and s.13(1)(d)/13(2) with Rs 7,000 fines. On 8 May 2020 the MP High Court (CRA 6384/2019) suspended the custodial sentence pending final hearing after ~10 months in custody, noting COVID risk; the appeal remains pending.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8622673/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-17-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-17-002)

## State (SPE Lokayukta Indore) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w3-17-006)

**Record:** t2w3-17-006
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukta Indore) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** 1st Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Indore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukta Indore) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 29 January 2020
**Incident date:** 2016-05-19 (2016)
**Place:** Indore, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Station Central Kotwali, Indore, Madhya Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Indore man
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs 2,000 fine with default stipulation

The 1st Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PC Act), Indore, on 29 January 2020 convicted Head Constable of PS Central Kotwali for demanding Rs 5,000-6,000 from an Indore man — whose wife had lodged a report against him — for filing the challan early and helping with bail, caught in an SPE Lokayukta Indore trap after a voice-recorder-verified demand; he drew 4 years RI with a Rs 2,000 fine under PC Act s.13(1)(d)/13(2). On 10 August 2020 the MP High Court (CRA 1195/2020) suspended the sentence noting COVID risk; the appeal remains pending.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2447203/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-17-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-17-006)

## State (SPE Lokayukt) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable and others (t2w2-12-003)

**Record:** t2w2-12-003
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukt) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), District Shivpuri (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukt) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 11 November 2021
**Incident date:** 2017-01-10 (2017)
**Place:** Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Physical Chowki, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Shivpuri resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine (s.7); 5 years RI + Rs 7,000 fine (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with default stipulations

The Special Judge (PC Act), Shivpuri, on 11 November 2021 convicted Head Constable \[name withheld\] of Physical Chowki for demanding Rs 10,000 to release complainant \[name withheld\]'s.315-bore rifle, which he had seized without a seizure memo after a 2 January 2017 quarrel; a Lokayukt trap caught him accepting Rs 8,000 in tainted notes. He was sentenced to 3 years RI under PC Act s.7 and 5 years RI under s.13(1)(d)/13(2). On 27 June 2023 the MP High Court (Gwalior) suspended his remaining sentence pending disposal of CRA 6998/2021, noting no likelihood of early hearing.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8127060/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-12-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-12-003)

## State (PS Lokayukt Bhopal, Crime No. 216/2016) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w3-17-005)

**Record:** t2w3-17-005
**Title:** State (PS Lokayukt Bhopal, Crime No. 216/2016) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), District Shivpuri (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (PS Lokayukt Bhopal, Crime No. 216/2016) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 31 December 2021
**Incident date:** 2016-07-01 (2016)
**Place:** Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Pichhore, District Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Shivpuri man
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine (s.7, 3 months RI default); 5 years RI + Rs 7,000 fine (s.13(1)(d)/13(2), 4 months RI default)

The Special Judge (PC Act) Shivpuri on 31 December 2021 convicted ASI of PS Pichhore for demanding Rs 25,000 (negotiated to Rs 20,000) from a Shivpuri man for bail of his driver in an Alto-car accident case and taking Rs 5,000, recovered from his possession in a Lokayukt trap (Crime 216/2016, PS Lokayukt Bhopal); he drew 3 years RI under PC Act s.7 and 5 years RI under s.13(1)(d)/13(2) with Rs 5,000 and Rs 7,000 fines. On 7 July 2022 the MP High Court (CRA-2423-2022) allowed his second suspension application and suspended the sentence pending appeal; the appeal remains pending.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7656665/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-17-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-17-005)

## State of M.P. (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Police Chowki Incharge (rank not stated in HC order) (t2w4-33-075)

**Record:** t2w4-33-075
**Title:** State of M.P. (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Police Chowki Incharge (rank not stated in HC order)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), District Barwani (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State of M.P. (SPE Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Police Chowki Incharge (rank not stated in HC order)
**Conviction:** 17 November 2022
**Incident date:** 2015-11-02 (2015)
**Place:** Barwani, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Chowki Incharge (rank not stated in HC order), Police Chowki Chachriya, Police Station Sendhwa, District Barwani, Madhya Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI (s.7) + 4 years RI (s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)) with default stipulation; fine amounts not stated in HC order

The Special Judge (PC Act) Barwani on 17 November 2022 convicted \[name withheld\], incharge of Police Chowki Chachriya (PS Sendhwa), who had demanded Rs.8,000 to dilute a criminal case and was trapped accepting Rs.6,000 in tainted money (SC LOK/600055/2016); 4 years RI on each of the s.7 and s.13(1)(d)/13(2) counts. On 20 February 2023 the MP High Court admitted his appeal (CRA No.10788/2022); the order records the trap as proved despite a hostile complainant.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194339265/); MP High Court, CRA No. 10788 of 2022, order dated 20.02.2023 (Vivek Rusia J.) recording the trial-court conviction
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-33-075](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-33-075)

## State (SPE Lokayukt Gwalior) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable (t2w3-17-007)

**Record:** t2w3-17-007
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukt Gwalior) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Shivpuri (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukt Gwalior) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 9 April 2021
**Incident date:** 2016-11-07 (2016)
**Place:** Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Station Bhauti / Chowki Khod, District Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Shivpuri man
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine (s.7); 5 years RI + Rs 7,000 fine (s.13(1)(d)/13(2)), with default stipulation

The Special Judge (PC Act), Shivpuri, on 9 April 2021 convicted Head Constable of PS Bhauti/Chowki Khod for demanding Rs 10,000 from \[name withheld\] to release him and his family on bail in a cross-FIR quarrel case of 17 October 2016, caught in an SPE Lokayukt Gwalior trap with hands turning pink in sodium-carbonate solution; he drew 3 years RI under PC Act s.7 and 5 years RI under s.13(1)(d)/13(2) with Rs 5,000 and Rs 7,000 fines. On 28 June 2023 the MP High Court (CRA 2935/2021) allowed his fifth suspension application after he had served over 50% of the maximum sentence; the appeal remains pending.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150122919/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-17-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-17-007)

## State (SPE Lokayukt Bhopal) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others (t2w3-17-008)

**Record:** t2w3-17-008
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukt Bhopal) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Rajgarh (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukt Bhopal) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 20 March 2014
**Incident date:** 2009-10-13 (2009)
**Place:** Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Biaora, District Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Rajgarh man
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs 2,500 fine (s.7, 3 months RI default); 2 years RI + Rs 2,500 fine (s.13(1)(d)/13(2), 3 months RI default)

The Special Judge (PC Act), Rajgarh, on 20 March 2014 convicted ASI of PS Biaora for demanding Rs 10,000 (negotiated to Rs 8,000, Rs 1,500 paid) from a Rajgarh man to release his illegally detained nephew \[name withheld\], sentencing him to 2 years RI each under PC Act s.7 and s.13(1)(d)/13(2) with Rs 2,500 fines; when the Lokayukt trap closed in, Mishra fled on co-accused constable 's motorcycle while brandishing his service revolver at the trap team. Mishra died on 12 April 2021 and his appeal continued via LRs; on 21 November 2024 the MP High Court dismissed both appeals on merits, upholding the convictions.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81632470/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3487012/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-17-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-17-008)

## State (SPE Lokayukt Bhopal) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Constable and others (t2w3-17-009)

**Record:** t2w3-17-009
**Title:** State (SPE Lokayukt Bhopal) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Constable and others
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Rajgarh (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (SPE Lokayukt Bhopal) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Constable and others
**Conviction:** 20 March 2014
**Incident date:** 2009-10-13 (2009)
**Place:** Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Police Station Biaora, District Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Rajgarh man
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs 2,500 fine (s.7, 3 months RI default); 2 years RI + Rs 2,500 fine (s.13(1)(d)/13(2), 3 months RI default)

The Special Judge (PC Act), Rajgarh, on 20 March 2014 convicted Constable of PS Biaora alongside ASI for the Rs 10,000-negotiated-to-8,000 bribe demanded from a Rajgarh man to release his illegally detained nephew \[name withheld\], sentencing him identically to 2 years RI each under PC Act s.7 and s.13(1)(d)/13(2) with Rs 2,500 fines; he ferried the fleeing Mishra on his motorcycle as Mishra brandished a service revolver at the Lokayukt trap team. On 21 November 2024 the MP High Court dismissed his appeal (CRA 505/2014) on merits, upheld the conviction, cancelled his bail bonds and directed surrender within two weeks.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81632470/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3487012/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-17-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-17-009)

## State (Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w3-34-014)

**Record:** t2w3-34-014
**Title:** State (Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Court, Gwalior (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** State (Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta) v. Madhya Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 30 December 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Madhya Pradesh Police (retired 31.03.2015 from the post of Sub-Inspector)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI (s.7) and 4 years RI (s.13(1)(d)/13(2))

Sub-Inspector (MP Police, retired 31.03.2015) was challaned by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta and convicted by the Special Court, Gwalior on 30.12.2016 in Special Sessions Trial No.4/2015 under PC Act ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2), with sentences of three and four years' RI plus fines; his pension was withheld following the conviction. His criminal appeal (CrA 79/2017) is pending before the High Court, which suspended the remaining jail sentence without staying the conviction.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37319908/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-34-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-34-014)

## State of Maharashtra v. Thane Police Sub-Inspector (t2w3-29-008)

**Record:** t2w3-29-008
**Title:** State of Maharashtra v. Thane Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (court name, case number and conviction date not stated in SC judgment; Ambarnath case) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State of Maharashtra v. Thane Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 1975
**Incident date:** 1972-04-14 (1972)
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(a); PC Act 1947 s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Ambarnath Police Station, Thane district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Trial court: 2 years RI + Rs.2,000 fine (6 months RI in default); Supreme Court (final): 6 months RI on each count, concurrent + Rs.2,000 fine (6 weeks RI in default)

Per the Supreme Court judgment of 27-10-1983, Narsingrao Pimple, then a Sub-Inspector attached to Ambarnath Police Station, held up a prohibition charge-sheet against complainant \[name withheld\] and demanded Rs.2,000 on 09-04-1972 and again on 13-04-1972 to shelve the case, accepting twenty Rs.100 notes in a trap near the Ambarnath octroi naka on 14-04-1972. The trial court convicted him (2 years RI + Rs.2,000 fine) and the Bombay High Court acquitted him in January 1976, but the Supreme Court (Fazal Ali, J.) held the trap proved and the defence a smokescreen, allowing the \[name withheld\] appeal and convicting him under s.161 IPC and ss.5(1)(a)/5(2) of the 1947 Act with 6 months concurrent RI and Rs.2,000 fine.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/670738/state-of-maharashtra-appellant-hash-narsingrao-gangaram-pimple-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-29-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-29-008)

## State of Maharashtra v. Nagpur Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w3-29-002)

**Record:** t2w3-29-002
**Title:** State of Maharashtra v. Nagpur Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State of Maharashtra v. Nagpur Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 18 January 1990
**Incident date:** 1981-08-22 (1981)
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 376
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagpur Police (local police station with jurisdiction over the lodge; exact PS not stated in SC judgment)
**Victims:** Nagpur woman
**Sentence:** 5 years RI

Per the Supreme Court judgment of 18-01-1990, Sub-Inspector raped a 19-20-year-old newly married woman on 22-08-1981 after detaining her husband at a lodge near Nagpur on a s.110/117 CrPC pretext. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur convicted him u/s 376 IPC (5 years RI + Rs.1,000 fine, acquitting u/s 342); the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) set the conviction aside, and the Supreme Court allowed the \[name withheld\] appeal, restoring the trial-court conviction and sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199575/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-29-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-29-002)

## State (ACB) v. Sonyabapu Bhau Sarjine (Special Case No.6/1992; Crl Appeal No.236/1995) (t2w2-03-029)

**Record:** t2w2-03-029
**Title:** State (ACB) v. Sonyabapu Bhau Sarjine (Special Case No.6/1992; Crl Appeal No.236/1995)
**Court:** Special Judge, Pune (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) v. Sonyabapu Bhau Sarjine (Special Case No.6/1992; Crl Appeal No.236/1995)
**Conviction:** 6 May 1995
**Incident date:** 1992-01-23 (1992)
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sonyabapu Bhau Sarjine (Police Head Constable (Police Constable in cause title))
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI + Rs.500 (ss.7/13(1)(d)); 1 yr RI + Rs.500 (s.13(2))

The Special Judge, Pune, in Special Case No.6/1992 on 6 May 1995 convicted Head Constable of Shirur police station for demanding Rs.1,000 at a 26 October 1991 accident spot (paid) to release a brick-kiln truck and then Rs.500 (negotiated to Rs.200) from driver-complainant \[name withheld\] on 20 January 1992 to return seized permit/licence documents, caught in an ACB trap at Shirur police station on 23 January 1992 following the 22 January complaint, sentencing him to 1 year's RI on each PC Act count. On 13 January 2016 Justice Sadhana Jadhav (Crl Appeal No.236/1995) dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction via the s.20 presumption and ordering surrender within four weeks of 1 February 2016.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73169708/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-03-029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-03-029)

## State v. Nagpur Police Police Inspector and others (t2w2-03-007)

**Record:** t2w2-03-007
**Title:** State v. Nagpur Police Police Inspector and others
**Court:** Sessions Court, Nagpur (Sessions Case No. 416 of 1993) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Nagpur Police Police Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 22 September 1995
**Incident date:** 1993-06-23 (1993)
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 330 r/w IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Deolapar Police Station, Nagpur; Assistant Police Inspector, Deolapar Police Station, Nagpur; Sub-Inspector, Deolapar Police Station, Nagpur; Police Constable, Deolapar Police Station, Nagpur; Police Constable, Deolapar Police Station, Nagpur; Police Constable, Deolapar Police Station, Nagpur; Police Constable, Deolapar Police Station, Nagpur; Police Constable, Deolapar Police Station, Nagpur; Police Constable, Deolapar Police Station, Nagpur; Police Constable, Deolapar Police Station, Nagpur
**Victims:** Nagpur man; Nagpur woman
**Sentence:** 3 yrs RI + Rs.500 fine (s.330); 6 mo RI + Rs.300 (s.354); 3 yrs RI + Rs.300 (s.355); 3 yrs RI + Rs.300 (s.342); concurrent; acquitted u/s 302

In Sessions Case No.416/1993 the Sessions Court on 22 September 1995 convicted all ten Deolapar (Nagpur) police personnel — PI \[name withheld\], API \[name withheld\], SI and seven constables — for tying theft suspect \[name withheld\] to an electric pole and beating him on 23-24 June 1993, after which he was found dead in the lock-up; all were sentenced to 3 years RI under IPC s.330/34 (plus terms under ss.354/355/342) and acquitted of murder. The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) on 13 December 2007 upheld the s.330 conviction of A-1 to A-9 while acquitting A-10 Raghunath Bhakte; the Supreme Court on 4 September 2018 (A-1 having died, appeal abated) upheld the eight convictions and enhanced the s.330 sentence to 7 years RI.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29693305/); [indialegallive.com](https://indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/supreme-court-news/sc-ups-sentence-for-maharashtra-cops-from-3-to-7-years-in-custodial-death-case/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/sc-stresses-on-need-to-develop-and-recognize-democratic-policing-concept-enhances-punishment-to-cops-involved-in-custodial-torture-case-read-judgment)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-03-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-03-007)

## State v. Manik Jibhkate & Ors (Shama Uke custodial death, Gondia 1995); Sessions Case No. 21 of 1996 (t2w2-14-007)

**Record:** t2w2-14-007
**Title:** State v. Manik Jibhkate & Ors (Shama Uke custodial death, Gondia 1995); Sessions Case No. 21 of 1996
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia (Sessions Trial No. 21 of 1996) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Manik Jibhkate & Ors (Shama Uke custodial death, Gondia 1995); Sessions Case No. 21 of 1996
**Conviction:** 1996
**Incident date:** 1995-12-15 (1995)
**Place:** Gondia, Maharashtra
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 330 r/w IPC 34; IPC 348 r/w IPC 34; IPC 387 r/w IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Manik Jibhkate (Police Sub-Inspector (A-1)); Police Constable (A-2), Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable (A-3), Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable (A-4), Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable (A-5), Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable (A-6), Gondia City Police Station; Police Constable (A-7), Gondia City Police Station
**Victims:** Gondia man
**Sentence:** A-1, A-2, A-4: 7 years RI (304-II) + 3 years RI (331) + 1-year terms (330/348/387, 201/218) + fines; A-3, A-5: 3 years RI (331) + 1-year terms + 3 months (202) + fines; A-6, A-7: 1 year RI (201/218) + 3 months (202) + fines (Supreme Court, 25 September 2024: acquitted under section 304-II; torture convictions under sections 330/348/387 upheld with 1 year RI + fines)

The Supreme Court (Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, Manik & Ors v. \[name withheld\] of Maharashtra, Crl.A. Nos. 1514-1518 of 2012, 2024 INSC 734, 25 September 2024) in a split verdict acquitted the officers under section 304-II — holding fingerprint evidence on the exhumed burnt body unreliable, no DNA test done, and identity as \[name withheld\] not proved — but unanimously upheld the custodial-torture convictions under sections 330, 348 and 387 with one year RI plus fines; Justice Sanjay Kumar dissented on the 304-II acquittal.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/708824/); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/manik-v-the-state-of-maharashtrawatermark-1655838.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-14-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-14-007)

## State (ACB) v. Satara Police Police Constable (P.C.B. No.454) (t2w2-03-027)

**Record:** t2w2-03-027
**Title:** State (ACB) v. Satara Police Police Constable (P.C.B. No.454)
**Court:** Special Judge, Satara (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) v. Satara Police Police Constable (P.C.B. No.454)
**Conviction:** 21 September 2000
**Incident date:** 1993-06-23 (1993)
**Place:** Satara, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (P.C.B. No.454), Dahiwadi Police Station, Tal. Man, Satara; Police Head Constable, Dahiwadi Police Station, Tal. Man, Satara
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** A-2 and A-3 each: 6 mo SI + Rs.500 (s.7); 1 yr SI + Rs.500 (s.13), concurrent; A-1 Ramesh Shinde (hotelier): 6 mo SI + Rs.500 (s.12)

The Special Judge, Satara, in Special Case No.7/1994 on 21 September 2000 convicted Head Constable (A-3) and Constable \[name withheld\] of Dahiwadi police station for demanding Rs.200 from a complainant on 22 June 1993 to avoid arrest in a well-water dispute with his brother, caught in a DySP \[name withheld\] ACB Satara trap at the police station and Ashok Hotel on 23 June 1993 (A-3 demanded, A-2 collected via hotelier A-1), sentencing each policeman to 1 year's SI under PC Act s.13 plus 6 months under s.7. On 9 April 2021 Justice Bharati Dangre (Crl Appeal No.687/2000) confirmed the judgment, partly allowing the appeal only to acquit A-2 under s.7 while sustaining his s.13 conviction and both convictions of A-3.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/767094/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-03-027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-03-027)

## CBI vs Mumbai City Police Inspector of Police (on deputation from Intelligence Bureau; posted Inspector, CBI, SCB, Mumbai) (t2w4-21-003)

**Record:** t2w4-21-003
**Title:** CBI vs Mumbai City Police Inspector of Police (on deputation from Intelligence Bureau; posted Inspector, CBI, SCB, Mumbai)
**Court:** Court of Shri A.R. Joshi, Special Judge (CBI), Greater Mumbai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Mumbai City Police Inspector of Police (on deputation from Intelligence Bureau; posted Inspector, CBI, SCB, Mumbai)
**Conviction:** 3 February 2005
**Incident date:** 2003-04-20 (2003)
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police (on deputation from Intelligence Bureau; posted Inspector, CBI, SCB, Mumbai), Intelligence Bureau (on deputation to CBI, SCB Mumbai)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment (s.7) + 5 years RI (s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)), concurrent; dismissed from service

The CBI press release dated 13.03.2006 states that Special Judge (CBI) Shri A.R. Joshi, Greater Mumbai convicted Inspector, an Intelligence Bureau officer on deputation as Inspector, CBI SCB Mumbai, sentencing him to five years RI with Rs.50,000 fine each under s.7 and s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (concurrent), after he was caught red-handed accepting a Rs.1 lakh bribe on 20.04.2003 from an accused in a CBI case he was investigating. The release, issued in CBI's drive against corruption within its own ranks, records that Rai was chargesheeted 26.07.2003, convicted 03.02.2005, and has since been dismissed from service.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20060314194036id_/http://cbi.nic.in/PressReleases/PRelease2006/p13_1Mar06.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-21-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-21-003)

## CBI vs Mumbai City Police Inspector (posted Inspector, CBI, ACB, Patna; investigated at transfer from Mumbai) (t2w4-21-004)

**Record:** t2w4-21-004
**Title:** CBI vs Mumbai City Police Inspector (posted Inspector, CBI, ACB, Patna; investigated at transfer from Mumbai)
**Court:** Special Judge (CBI), Greater Mumbai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Mumbai City Police Inspector (posted Inspector, CBI, ACB, Patna; investigated at transfer from Mumbai)
**Conviction:** 17 October 2005
**Incident date:** 2003-01-01 (2003)
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.11; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector (posted Inspector, CBI, ACB, Patna; investigated at transfer from Mumbai), CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, Patna
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment (s.11) + 2 years RI (s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)), concurrent; dismissed from CBI

The CBI press release dated 13.03.2006 states that the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai convicted CBI Inspector on 17.10.2005, sentencing him to two years RI with Rs.50,000 fine each under s.11 and s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (concurrent), for abusing his official position as Inspector, CBI ACB Patna by getting his household articles packed and transported to Patna on transfer from Mumbai (pecuniary advantage Rs.12,448) through a transport company against which he was investigating a case. The release records the RC of 30.04.2003, chargesheet of 05.04.2004, framing of charges on 24.01.2005, and that Singh was recently dismissed from the CBI.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20060314194036id_/http://cbi.nic.in/PressReleases/PRelease2006/p13_1Mar06.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-21-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-21-004)

## State (ACB Jalna) v. Jalna Police Assistant Police Prosecutor (police prosecution cadre) (t2w2-03-038)

**Record:** t2w2-03-038
**Title:** State (ACB Jalna) v. Jalna Police Assistant Police Prosecutor (police prosecution cadre)
**Court:** Special Judge, Jalna (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB Jalna) v. Jalna Police Assistant Police Prosecutor (police prosecution cadre)
**Conviction:** 6 May 2008
**Incident date:** 1992-03-01 (1992)
**Place:** Jalna, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Prosecutor (police prosecution cadre), Courts at Jalna (4th JMFC court)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + fine Rs.200 (first count); 6 months RI + fine Rs.100 (second count)

The Special Judge, Jalna (Special Case 8/1994) convicted \[name withheld\] Police Prosecutor Shivadas Jadhav for demanding Rs.500 from complainant \[name withheld\] — an accused in STC 2973/1990 whom Jadhav was prosecuting — offering to manage witnesses to secure his acquittal, and accepting Rs.500 in ACB-tainted Rs.100 notes on 17-03-1992; sentenced to 1 year's RI plus 6 months' RI with fines. On 06-05-2008 the Bombay High Court (Kingaonkar J.) dismissed his appeal, confirmed the conviction and ordered him to surrender to bail immediately.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1924286/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-03-038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-03-038)

## State (ACB) v. Buldhana Police Police Head Constable (t2w3-29-003)

**Record:** t2w3-29-003
**Title:** State (ACB) v. Buldhana Police Police Head Constable
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Buldana (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) v. Buldhana Police Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 10 August 2009
**Incident date:** 2000-09-01 (2000)
**Place:** Buldhana, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Lonar Police Station, Buldhana district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years SI + Rs.1,000 fine

Per the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) judgment of 09-10-2024, Head Constable of Lonar Police Station, entrusted with a bullock-cart axle theft report (25-08-2000), demanded Rs.2,000 to avoid seeking police custody remand/arrest and accepted tainted money in an ACB trap in mid-September 2000. The Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Buldana convicted him on 10-08-2009 in Spl ACB Case No.1/2001, and the High Court dismissed the appeal (continued by his widow after his death), upholding conviction and sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144007931/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-29-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-29-003)

## State v. Maharashtra Police Armed Police Constable (retired) (t2w3-29-004)

**Record:** t2w3-29-004
**Title:** State v. Maharashtra Police Armed Police Constable (retired)
**Court:** Court of Shri R.V. Jatale, Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dhule (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Maharashtra Police Armed Police Constable (retired)
**Conviction:** 31 March 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dhule, Maharashtra
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Police Constable (retired), Maharashtra Police (exact unit not stated in judgment)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs.20,000 fine (3 months SI in default)

Per the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) judgment of 08-04-2011 in Criminal Contempt Petition No.1 of 2011, \[name withheld\], then an Armed Police Constable, was convicted on 31-03-2008 by Shri R.V. Jatale, Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dhule, in Special Case No.86/1995 for possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income and sentenced to 2 years RI with a Rs.20,000 fine. Jadhav appealed (Criminal Appeal No.130/2008, admitted 25-04-2008 with substantive sentence suspended and bail granted); the contempt judgment records the appeal as pending then and its later fate is not traced.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/811245/registrar-adm-high-court-of-bombay-appellant-hash-khandu-punju-jadhav-armed-police-constable-rtd/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/264260/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-29-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-29-004)

## State vs Maharashtra Police Police Constable (t2w4-03-012)

**Record:** t2w4-03-012
**Title:** State vs Maharashtra Police Police Constable
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Maharashtra Police Police Constable
**Conviction:** 26 February 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Wardha, Maharashtra
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302 r/w 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Maharashtra Police, Wardha (unit not stated in judgment)
**Victims:** Wardha man
**Sentence:** Imprisonment for life

The Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha convicted Police Constable on 27-03-2000 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment for murdering Police Inspector. As recorded by the High Court, a Wardha man had reprimanded \[name withheld\] at roll call for pocketing a Rs. 25 fine from a rickshaw driver without receipt, and the same midnight \[name withheld\] and a colleague went to a Wardha man's quarters with knives and killed him on the spot. The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench, S.B. Deshmukh and M.T. Joshi JJ.) in Criminal Writ Petition No. 30 of 2013 decided on 26-02-2013 dismissed \[name withheld\]'s remission-categorisation challenge, holding the murder premeditated.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/778529/satyadeo-madhavrao-jamgade-appellant-hash-the-state-of-maharashtra-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-03-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-03-012)

## State (SIT) v. Mumbai Police Inspector and others (t2-16-004)

**Record:** t2-16-004
**Title:** State (SIT) v. Mumbai Police Inspector and others
**Court:** Sessions Court, Mumbai (Sessions Judge V.D. Jadhwar) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State (SIT) v. Mumbai Police Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 5 July 2013
**Incident date:** 2006-11-11 (2006)
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; Abetment/conspiracy charges (remaining convicts; exact sections not stated in accessed reports)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Mumbai Police; Inspector, Mumbai Police; Constable, Mumbai Police; rank not stated in report, Mumbai Police; rank not stated in report, Mumbai Police; rank not stated in report, Mumbai Police; rank not stated in report, Mumbai Police; rank not stated in report, Mumbai Police; rank not stated in report, Mumbai Police; rank not stated in report, Mumbai Police; rank not stated in report, Mumbai Police; rank not stated in report, Mumbai Police
**Victims:** Mumbai Suburban man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment to all 21 convicts (awarded 12 July 2013), including 13 policemen; prime accused Sr Inspector acquitted by trial court

The Mumbai Sessions Court on 5 July 2013 delivered the first-ever conviction of policemen in a fake encounter, holding 21 accused including 13 Mumbai policemen guilty for abducting Vashi resident \[name withheld\] and killing him in a staged shooting at Versova on 11 November 2006; three officers were convicted of murder and 18 accused of abetting, all sentenced to life on 12 July 2013. On 19 March 2024 the Bombay High Court (Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse) upheld life terms for 12 policemen and one civilian, acquitted six civilians, and reversed the trial acquittal of encounter specialist \[name withheld\], sentencing him to life, calling the trial acquittal perverse. (A 13th convicted policeman died post-conviction and proceedings abated; His SLP was admitted by the Supreme Court with interim no-surrender relief.)

**Sources (5):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/lakhan-bhaiya-judgement-march-19-529456.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-mumbai-police-encounter-specialist-pradeep-sharma-acquittal-fake-encounter-case-lakhan-bhaiya-252769); [english.tupaki.com](https://english.tupaki.com/entertainment/article/life-term-for-staged-shootout-to-21-including-13-policemen/16619); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/bombay-high-court-overturns-acquittal-former-cop-pradeep-sharma-fake-encounter-case); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/fake-encounter-case-supreme-court-refuses-to-suspend-conviction-of-ex-mumbai-cop-pradeep-sharma-for-contesting-assembly-elections-265783)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-16-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-16-004)

## CBI v. Railway Protection Force Inspector (t2w3-24-015)

**Record:** t2w3-24-015
**Title:** CBI v. Railway Protection Force Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge, Mumbai (CBI case) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Railway Protection Force Inspector
**Conviction:** 4 September 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated (2009)
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B r/w PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Mumbai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge, Mumbai convicted RPF Inspector in a bribery case and sentenced him to one year RI with Rs.10,000 fine, while acquitting the co-accused constable. The release states Roy demanded Rs.50,000 from the complainant for not acting against him in a case about Rs.2 lakh loss to Railways from sticking posters on local trains without permission; a trap caught the Inspector and a constable accepting Rs.4,000; CBI chargesheeted both on 10.11.2009 and the trial court convicted only the Inspector. (Same PR also reports an excise \[name withheld\] and a deputy chief ticket inspector convicted in separate cases; neither is police.)

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzUwNQ==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-015)

## ACB CR No. 55/Mumbai/2009 (CR/397/Mumbai/2009) (t2w4-38-001)

**Record:** t2w4-38-001
**Title:** ACB CR No. 55/Mumbai/2009 (CR/397/Mumbai/2009)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (inferred) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 55/Mumbai/2009 (CR/397/Mumbai/2009)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Deonar Police Station, Mumbai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** s.7: 1 yr imprisonment + Rs.1,000 fine; s.13: 2 yrs imprisonment + Rs.2,000 fine

Maharashtra ACB official conviction list (Oct-Dec 2013 section, Sr. No. 1) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), Deonar Police Station, Mumbai, was convicted on 3 October 2013 in ACB CR No. 55/Mumbai/2009 (bribe Rs.5,000) under ss. 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced him to 1 yr imprisonment (s.7, Rs.1,000 fine) and 2 yrs imprisonment (s.13, Rs.2,000 fine).

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](http://web.archive.org/web/20151028151230/http://acbmaharashtra.gov.in/StatReport/conviction13-15.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-38-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-38-001)

## ACB CR No. 3002/Amravati/2011 (CR/9/Amravati/2011) (t2w4-38-002)

**Record:** t2w4-38-002
**Title:** ACB CR No. 3002/Amravati/2011 (CR/9/Amravati/2011)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Amravati (inferred) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 3002/Amravati/2011 (CR/9/Amravati/2011)
**Conviction:** 17 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Amravati, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, Badnera Police Station, Amravati City
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** s.7: 2 yrs rigorous imprisonment + Rs.500 fine (2 months simple imprisonment in default)

Maharashtra ACB official conviction list (Oct-Dec 2013 section, Sr. No. 4) records that \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Sub-Inspector. 281), Badnera Police Station, Amravati City, was convicted on 17 October 2013 in ACB CR No. 3002/2011 (bribe demand Rs.5,000) under s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Amravati, which sentenced him to 2 yrs rigorous imprisonment with Rs.500 fine (2 months simple imprisonment in default of fine).

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](http://web.archive.org/web/20151028151230/http://acbmaharashtra.gov.in/StatReport/conviction13-15.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-38-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-38-002)

## ACB CR No. 54/Mumbai/2006 (t2w4-38-004)

**Record:** t2w4-38-004
**Title:** ACB CR No. 54/Mumbai/2006
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (inferred) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 54/Mumbai/2006
**Conviction:** 31 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Convicted under ss.7 and 13; sentence details truncated in the source list cell (ends at the operative sentence line)

Maharashtra ACB official conviction list (Oct-Dec 2013 section, Sr. No. 8) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Inspector), N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai, was found guilty (accused 1) on 31 October 2013 in ACB CR No. 54/2006 (bribe Rs.20,000) under ss. 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while co-accused \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector) was acquitted. The sentence cell is truncated in the source PDF itself, ending at the operative sentence line; no appeal outcome is stated.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](http://web.archive.org/web/20151028151230/http://acbmaharashtra.gov.in/StatReport/conviction13-15.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-38-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-38-004)

## ACB CR No. 297/Mumbai/2002 (t2-03-001)

**Record:** t2-03-001
**Title:** ACB CR No. 297/Mumbai/2002
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 297/Mumbai/2002
**Conviction:** 23 January 2014
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Traffic Branch, Mumbai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 6 mo RI; fine Rs.2000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2014 (Sr. No. 4) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Constable), posted at Traffic Branch, Mumbai, Mumbai district, was convicted on 23 January 2014 in ACB CR No. 297/Mumbai/2002 under ss. 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 6 mo RI; fine Rs.2000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/69.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-001)

## ACB CR No. 390/Aubad/2007; GR No. 3016/2007 (t2-03-002)

**Record:** t2-03-002
**Title:** ACB CR No. 390/Aubad/2007; GR No. 3016/2007
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 390/Aubad/2007; GR No. 3016/2007
**Conviction:** 30 January 2014
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Aurangabad district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 3 mo; 3 mo RI; fine Rs.2000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2014 (Sr. No. 6) records that \[name withheld\] (Assistant Sub-Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Aurangabad district, was convicted on 30 January 2014 in ACB CR No. 390/Aubad/2007; GR No. 3016/2007 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 3 mo; 3 mo RI; fine Rs.2000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/69.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-002)

## ACB CR No. 09/Mumbai/2013 (t2-03-003)

**Record:** t2-03-003
**Title:** ACB CR No. 09/Mumbai/2013
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 09/Mumbai/2013
**Conviction:** 13 March 2014
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Bandra Police Station, Mumbai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; fine Rs.5000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2014 (Sr. No. 16) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Bandra Police Station, Mumbai, Mumbai district, was convicted on 13 March 2014 in ACB CR No. 09/Mumbai/2013 under s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; fine Rs.5000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/69.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-003)

## ACB CR No. 443/Mumbai/2011 (t2-03-004)

**Record:** t2-03-004
**Title:** ACB CR No. 443/Mumbai/2011
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 443/Mumbai/2011
**Conviction:** 16 April 2014
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Mumbai district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr imprisonment; 4 mo SI; fine Rs.15000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2014 (Sr. No. 27) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Mumbai district, was convicted on 16 April 2014 in ACB CR No. 443/Mumbai/2011 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr imprisonment; 4 mo SI; fine Rs.15000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/69.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-004)

## ACB CR No. 126/Nashik/2005; GR No. 3031/2003 (t2-03-005)

**Record:** t2-03-005
**Title:** ACB CR No. 126/Nashik/2005; GR No. 3031/2003
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nashik (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 126/Nashik/2005; GR No. 3031/2003
**Conviction:** 3 May 2014
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nashik, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Maleganv Chhavani Police Station, Nashik
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 2 mo

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2014 (Sr. No. 29) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Maleganv Chhavani Police Station, Nashik, Nashik district, was convicted on 3 May 2014 in ACB CR No. 126/Nashik/2005; GR No. 3031/2003 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nashik, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 2 mo.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/69.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-005)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-006)

**Record:** t2-03-006
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 3 June 2014
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Crime Branch, Aurangabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 6 mo; 2 mo RI; 1 mo RI; fine Rs.1000/Rs.500

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2014 (Sr. No. 35) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Constable), posted at Crime Branch, Aurangabad, Aurangabad district, was convicted on 3 June 2014 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 6 mo; 2 mo RI; 1 mo RI; fine Rs.1000/Rs.500.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/69.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-006)

## ACB CR No. 144/Jalana/11 (t2-03-007)

**Record:** t2-03-007
**Title:** ACB CR No. 144/Jalana/11
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Jalna (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 144/Jalana/11
**Conviction:** 2 July 2014
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jalna, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Thane Maujepuri Ta, Jalna
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr imprisonment; 1 yr imprisonment; 3 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2014 (Sr. No. 37) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Thane Maujepuri Ta, Jalna, Jalna district, was convicted on 2 July 2014 in ACB CR No. 144/Jalana/11 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Jalna, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr imprisonment; 1 yr imprisonment; 3 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/69.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-007)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-008)

**Record:** t2-03-008
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Raigad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 1 August 2014
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Raigad, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Managav Police Station, Raigad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr RI; 4 yr RI; 2 mo; fine Rs.5,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2014 (Sr. No. 40) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Managav Police Station, Raigad, Raigad district, was convicted on 1 August 2014 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Raigad, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr RI; 4 yr RI; 2 mo; fine Rs.5,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/69.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-008)

## ACB CR No. 3/\[name withheld\]/2012 (t2-03-009)

**Record:** t2-03-009
**Title:** ACB CR No. 3/\[name withheld\]/2012
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Ahmednagar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 3/\[name withheld\]/2012
**Conviction:** 19 January 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Pathardi Police Station, Ahmednagar
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 18 mo RI; 2 mo; 2 mo SI; fine Rs.2000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 4) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Pathardi Police Station, Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar district, was convicted on 19 January 2015 in ACB CR No. 3/\[name withheld\]/2012 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Ahmednagar, which sentenced the accused to 18 mo RI; 2 mo; 2 mo SI; fine Rs.2000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-009)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-010)

**Record:** t2-03-010
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Raigad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 31 January 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Raigad, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Inspector, Khopoli Police Station, Raigad; Police Constable, Khopoli Police Station, Raigad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 2 mo

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 8) records that \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Inspector) and \[name withheld\] (Police Constable), posted at Khopoli Police Station, Raigad, Raigad district, was convicted on 31 January 2015 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7, 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Raigad, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 2 mo.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-010)

## ACB CR No. 141/Pune/2012 (t2-03-011)

**Record:** t2-03-011
**Title:** ACB CR No. 141/Pune/2012
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Pune (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 141/Pune/2012
**Conviction:** 2 March 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Bhosari Police Station, Pune
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 2 yr RI; 2 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 16) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Bhosari Police Station, Pune, Pune district, was convicted on 2 March 2015 in ACB CR No. 141/Pune/2012 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Pune, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 2 yr RI; 2 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-011)

## ACB CR No. 19/Pune/2013 (t2-03-012)

**Record:** t2-03-012
**Title:** ACB CR No. 19/Pune/2013
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Pune (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 19/Pune/2013
**Conviction:** 4 March 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Jejuri Police Station, Pune
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 6 mo RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 17) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Jejuri Police Station, Pune, Pune district, was convicted on 4 March 2015 in ACB CR No. 19/Pune/2013 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Pune, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 6 mo RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-012)

## ACB CR No. 376/Nagapur/20 (t2-03-013)

**Record:** t2-03-013
**Title:** ACB CR No. 376/Nagapur/20
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nagpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 376/Nagapur/20
**Conviction:** 5 March 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Nagpur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr imprisonment; 2 mo; fine Rs.2000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 19) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Police Station, Nagpur, Nagpur district, was convicted on 5 March 2015 in ACB CR No. 376/Nagapur/20 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nagpur, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr imprisonment; 2 mo; fine Rs.2000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-013)

## ACB CR No. 34/Aubad/200; GR No. 3005/2008 (t2-03-014)

**Record:** t2-03-014
**Title:** ACB CR No. 34/Aubad/200; GR No. 3005/2008
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 34/Aubad/200; GR No. 3005/2008
**Conviction:** 12 March 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station Gangapur, Aurangabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 1 mo; 1 mo SI; fine Rs.1,000/Rs.1000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 20) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Police Station Gangapur, Aurangabad, Aurangabad district, was convicted on 12 March 2015 in ACB CR No. 34/Aubad/200; GR No. 3005/2008 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 1 mo; 1 mo SI; fine Rs.1,000/Rs.1000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-014)

## ACB CR No. 368/Pune/2005 (t2-03-015)

**Record:** t2-03-015
**Title:** ACB CR No. 368/Pune/2005
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Pune (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 368/Pune/2005
**Conviction:** 1 April 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Pune district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 6 mo RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 32) records that \[name withheld\] (Assistant Sub-Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Pune district, was convicted on 1 April 2015 in ACB CR No. 368/Pune/2005 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Pune, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 6 mo RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-015)

## ACB CR No. 328/Satara/20 (t2-03-016)

**Record:** t2-03-016
**Title:** ACB CR No. 328/Satara/20
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Satara (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 328/Satara/20
**Conviction:** 4 April 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Satara, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Maharashtra Police (Satara district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr RI; 6 mo RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 33) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Satara district, was convicted on 4 April 2015 in ACB CR No. 328/Satara/20 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Satara, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr RI; 6 mo RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-016)

## ACB CR No. 101/Gadachiroli/201; GR No. 3007/2011 (t2-03-017)

**Record:** t2-03-017
**Title:** ACB CR No. 101/Gadachiroli/201; GR No. 3007/2011
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Gadchiroli (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 101/Gadachiroli/201; GR No. 3007/2011
**Conviction:** 15 May 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Gadchiroli, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Gadchiroli district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; 6 mo; fine Rs.10,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 47) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Gadchiroli district, was convicted on 15 May 2015 in ACB CR No. 101/Gadachiroli/201; GR No. 3007/2011 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Gadchiroli, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; 6 mo; fine Rs.10,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-017)

## ACB CR No. 487/Kolahapur/20 (t2-03-018)

**Record:** t2-03-018
**Title:** ACB CR No. 487/Kolahapur/20
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Kolhapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 487/Kolahapur/20
**Conviction:** 21 May 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kolhapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik, Karavir Police Station, Kolhapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 6 mo RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 49) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Naik), posted at Karavir Police Station, Kolhapur, Kolhapur district, was convicted on 21 May 2015 in ACB CR No. 487/Kolahapur/20 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Kolhapur, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 6 mo RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-018)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-019)

**Record:** t2-03-019
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Ahmednagar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 22 May 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Shriramapur Police Station, Ahmednagar
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr RI; 4 yr RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 51) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Shriramapur Police Station, Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar district, was convicted on 22 May 2015 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Ahmednagar, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr RI; 4 yr RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-019)

## ACB CR No. 159/Satara/2009; Spl. Case No. 5/2013; GR No. 17/2011 (t2-03-021)

**Record:** t2-03-021
**Title:** ACB CR No. 159/Satara/2009; Spl. Case No. 5/2013; GR No. 17/2011
**Court:** Special Court, Vaduj (Satara district), Spl. Case No. 5/2013 (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 159/Satara/2009; Spl. Case No. 5/2013; GR No. 17/2011
**Conviction:** 26 May 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Satara, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Dahivadi Police Station, Satara
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 4 yr RI; 3 mo RI; 6 mo RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 53) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Dahivadi Police Station, Satara, Satara district, was convicted on 26 May 2015 in ACB CR No. 159/Satara/2009; Spl. Case No. 5/2013; GR No. 17/2011 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Satara (Spl. Case No. 5/2013) sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 4 yr RI; 3 mo RI; 6 mo RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-021)

## ACB CR No. 42/Satara/2011; GR No. 4/2011 (t2-03-022)

**Record:** t2-03-022
**Title:** ACB CR No. 42/Satara/2011; GR No. 4/2011
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Satara (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 42/Satara/2011; GR No. 4/2011
**Conviction:** 29 May 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Satara, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Vaduj Police Station, Satara
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 3 yr RI; 1 mo RI; 2 mo RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 54) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Vaduj Police Station, Satara, Satara district, was convicted on 29 May 2015 in ACB CR No. 42/Satara/2011; GR No. 4/2011 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Satara, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 3 yr RI; 1 mo RI; 2 mo RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-022)

## ACB CR No. 384/Dhule/2011; GR No. 3003/2011 (t2-03-023)

**Record:** t2-03-023
**Title:** ACB CR No. 384/Dhule/2011; GR No. 3003/2011
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Dhule (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 384/Dhule/2011; GR No. 3003/2011
**Conviction:** 4 July 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dhule, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Shindakheda Thane Police Station, Dhule
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr imprisonment; 3 mo; fine Rs.2000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 63) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Shindakheda Thane Police Station, Dhule, Dhule district, was convicted on 4 July 2015 in ACB CR No. 384/Dhule/2011; GR No. 3003/2011 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Dhule, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr imprisonment; 3 mo; fine Rs.2000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-023)

## ACB CR No. 362/Pune/2011 (t2-03-025)

**Record:** t2-03-025
**Title:** ACB CR No. 362/Pune/2011
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Pune (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 362/Pune/2011
**Conviction:** 31 July 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Shivajinagar Police Station Pune
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 2 mo; fine Rs.5000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 73) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Shivajinagar Police Station Pune, Pune district, was convicted on 31 July 2015 in ACB CR No. 362/Pune/2011 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Pune, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 2 mo; fine Rs.5000. Another accused in the same case was acquitted.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-025)

## State v. Gondia Police Police Head Constable (Buckle No.1014) (t2w4-03-006)

**Record:** t2w4-03-006
**Title:** State v. Gondia Police Police Head Constable (Buckle No.1014)
**Court:** Special Judge, Gondia (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Gondia Police Police Head Constable (Buckle No.1014)
**Conviction:** 31 March 2001
**Incident date:** 1995-08-01 (1995)
**Place:** Gondia, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable (Buckle No.1014), Outpost Sakritola, Police Station Salekasa, Gondia
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 6 months RI (s.7); 2 years RI (s.13(1)(d)); concurrent

The Special Judge, Gondia, in Special Case No.1/1997 on 31 March 2001 convicted Police Head Constable (Buckle No.1014, Sakritola outpost, Salekasa PS) for demanding Rs.200 in August 1995 from Tanulal to release his brother \[name withheld\], nabbed in a 25 August 1995 gambling raid at Kawadi village, in an ACB trap laid after complaints of 8 and 12 September 1995. The court imposed 6 months' RI under PC Act s.7 and 2 years' RI under s.13(1)(d), concurrent with fines. On 24 August 2015 Justice A.B. Chaudhari (Crl Appeal No.104/2000) dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentences.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/827769/nandlal-vs-state-of-maharashtra/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6493e1e32598f31853ab1d19/amp)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-03-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-03-006)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-026)

**Record:** t2-03-026
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (Malsiras special case, Solapur district) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 26 August 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Solapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Maharashtra Police (Solapur district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr imprisonment; 2 yr SI; fine Rs.5000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 79) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Solapur district, was convicted on 26 August 2015 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7, 13 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Solapur, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr imprisonment; 2 yr SI; fine Rs.5000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-026)

## State (ACB Solapur) vs Solapur Police Home Guard (t2w3-05-001)

**Record:** t2w3-05-001
**Title:** State (ACB Solapur) vs Solapur Police Home Guard
**Court:** Special Court, Malshiras/Solapur (exact court not stated in ACB list) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB Solapur) vs Solapur Police Home Guard
**Conviction:** 26 August 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Solapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13; PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Home Guard, Malshiras area, Solapur (police-affiliated auxiliary)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years imprisonment (s.12)

The ACB Maharashtra 2015 conviction list records that Home Guard (Malshiras Special Case, Solapur) was found proved (shabit) on 26/08/2015 as accused 2. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment plus Rs 5,000 fine under s.12 of the PC Act 1988. Home Guard is a police-affiliated auxiliary; included as police personnel with this note. No appeal is noted in the list.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20181222202237/http://acbmaharashtra.gov.in/files/Statistic/75.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-05-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-05-001)

## GR No. 12/2012 (t2-03-027)

**Record:** t2-03-027
**Title:** GR No. 12/2012
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** GR No. 12/2012
**Conviction:** 11 September 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik, Maharashtra Police (Mumbai district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr RI; 4 yr RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 85) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Naik), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Mumbai district, was convicted on 11 September 2015 in GR No. 12/2012 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr RI; 4 yr RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-027)

## ACB CR No. 310/Pune/2009; Spl. Case No. 9/2011 (t2-03-028)

**Record:** t2-03-028
**Title:** ACB CR No. 310/Pune/2009; Spl. Case No. 9/2011
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Pune (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 310/Pune/2009; Spl. Case No. 9/2011
**Conviction:** 15 September 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik, Chinchavad City, Pune
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; 3 mo RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 87) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Naik), posted at Chinchavad City, Pune, Pune district, was convicted on 15 September 2015 in ACB CR No. 310/Pune/2009; Spl. Case No. 9/2011 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Pune sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; 3 mo RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-028)

## ACB CR No. 383/Nashik/04; GR No. 3091/2004 (t2-03-029)

**Record:** t2-03-029
**Title:** ACB CR No. 383/Nashik/04; GR No. 3091/2004
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nashik (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 383/Nashik/04; GR No. 3091/2004
**Conviction:** 5 October 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nashik, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Nashik district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr imprisonment; 3 mo; fine Rs.5000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 92) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Nashik district, was convicted on 5 October 2015 in ACB CR No. 383/Nashik/04; GR No. 3091/2004 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nashik, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr imprisonment; 3 mo; fine Rs.5000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-029)

## ACB CR No. 12/Nagapur/94 (t2-03-030)

**Record:** t2-03-030
**Title:** ACB CR No. 12/Nagapur/94
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nagpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 12/Nagapur/94
**Conviction:** 6 October 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station Butibori Dist. Gra Nag, Nagpur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; fine Rs.3000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 93) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Police Station Butibori Dist. Gra Nag, Nagpur, Nagpur district, was convicted on 6 October 2015 in ACB CR No. 12/Nagapur/94 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nagpur, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; fine Rs.3000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-030)

## ACB CR No. 72/Nashik/200; GR No. 3021/2007 (t2-03-031)

**Record:** t2-03-031
**Title:** ACB CR No. 72/Nashik/200; GR No. 3021/2007
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nashik (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 72/Nashik/200; GR No. 3021/2007
**Conviction:** 7 October 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nashik, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Panchavati Police Station, Nashik
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr imprisonment; 10 mo RI; fine Rs.5,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 94) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Panchavati Police Station, Nashik, Nashik district, was convicted on 7 October 2015 in ACB CR No. 72/Nashik/200; GR No. 3021/2007 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nashik, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr imprisonment; 10 mo RI; fine Rs.5,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-031)

## ACB CR No. 416/\[name withheld\]/2010 (t2-03-032)

**Record:** t2-03-032
**Title:** ACB CR No. 416/\[name withheld\]/2010
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Ahmednagar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 416/\[name withheld\]/2010
**Conviction:** 17 October 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik, Akole Police Station District, Ahmednagar
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 6 mo RI; fine Rs.10,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 98) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Naik), posted at Akole Police Station District, Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar district, was convicted on 17 October 2015 in ACB CR No. 416/\[name withheld\]/2010 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Ahmednagar, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 6 mo RI; fine Rs.10,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-032)

## ACB CR No. 102/Pune/2013; Spl. Case No. 06/2014 (t2-03-033)

**Record:** t2-03-033
**Title:** ACB CR No. 102/Pune/2013; Spl. Case No. 06/2014
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Pune (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 102/Pune/2013; Spl. Case No. 06/2014
**Conviction:** 28 October 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik, Rajagad Police Station, Pune
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 2 yr RI; 3 mo SI; 6 mo

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 101) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Naik), posted at Rajagad Police Station, Pune, Pune district, was convicted on 28 October 2015 in ACB CR No. 102/Pune/2013; Spl. Case No. 06/2014 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Pune sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 2 yr RI; 3 mo SI; 6 mo. Another accused in the same case was acquitted.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-033)

## Spl. Case No. 02/2012 (t2-03-034)

**Record:** t2-03-034
**Title:** Spl. Case No. 02/2012
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Pune (Spl. Case No. 02/2012) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Spl. Case No. 02/2012
**Conviction:** 30 October 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Pun Cha-holi Police Chowki, Pune
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 6 mo RI; 1 mo RI; 1 mo

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 102) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Pun Cha-holi Police Chowki, Pune, Pune district, was convicted on 30 October 2015 in Spl. Case No. 02/2012 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Pune (Spl. Case No. 02/2012) sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 6 mo RI; 1 mo RI; 1 mo.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-034)

## ACB CR No. 178/Pune/13; Spl. Case No. 8/2013 (t2-03-035)

**Record:** t2-03-035
**Title:** ACB CR No. 178/Pune/13; Spl. Case No. 8/2013
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Pune (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 178/Pune/13; Spl. Case No. 8/2013
**Conviction:** 7 December 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, City Chatushrringi Police Station, Pune
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 1 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 110) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at City Chatushrringi Police Station, Pune, Pune district, was convicted on 7 December 2015 in ACB CR No. 178/Pune/13; Spl. Case No. 8/2013 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Pune sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 1 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-035)

## Spl. Case No. 9/2013 (t2-03-036)

**Record:** t2-03-036
**Title:** Spl. Case No. 9/2013
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Kolhapur (Spl. Case No. 9/2013) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Spl. Case No. 9/2013
**Conviction:** 9 December 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kolhapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Rajaramapuri Police Station, Kolhapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 4 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 111) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Constable), posted at Rajaramapuri Police Station, Kolhapur, Kolhapur district, was convicted on 9 December 2015 in Spl. Case No. 9/2013 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Kolhapur (Spl. Case No. 9/2013) sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 4 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-036)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-037)

**Record:** t2-03-037
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Unknown - list does not name the deciding court; do not assert Mumbai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 10 December 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Police Station Navi Mumbai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; 6 mo; 1 mo SI; 3 mo SI; fine Rs.500

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 112) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Police Station Navi Mumbai, Mumbai district, was convicted on 10 December 2015 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; 6 mo; 1 mo SI; 3 mo SI; fine Rs.500.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-037)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-038)

**Record:** t2-03-038
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Kolhapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 17 December 2015
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kolhapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Panhala Police Kol Thane, Kolhapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 5 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2015 (Sr. No. 113) records that \[name withheld\] (Assistant Sub-Inspector), posted at Panhala Police Kol Thane, Kolhapur, Kolhapur district, was convicted on 17 December 2015 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Kolhapur sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 5 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/75.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-038)

## ACB CR No. 318/Solapur/2014; Spl. Case No. 6/2012 (t2-03-039)

**Record:** t2-03-039
**Title:** ACB CR No. 318/Solapur/2014; Spl. Case No. 6/2012
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Solapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 318/Solapur/2014; Spl. Case No. 6/2012
**Conviction:** 14 January 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Solapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Varshe Police Station, Solapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 2 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 3) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Varshe Police Station, Solapur, Solapur district, was convicted on 14 January 2016 in ACB CR No. 318/Solapur/2014; Spl. Case No. 6/2012 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Solapur sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 2 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-039)

## State v. Solapur Police Police Head Constable and others (t2w2-03-010)

**Record:** t2w2-03-010
**Title:** State v. Solapur Police Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Special Judge, Solapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Solapur Police Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 8 September 1997
**Incident date:** 1993-10-11 (1993)
**Place:** Solapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Akluj outpost police station, Shripur, Tal. Malshiras, Solapur; Police Constable, Akluj outpost police station, Shripur, Tal. Malshiras, Solapur
**Victims:** Solapur man
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\] (A-1): 1.5 yrs RI + Rs.1,000 fine (s.13); 6 mo RI + Rs.500 fine (s.7); \[name withheld\] (A-2): 6 mo RI + Rs.1,000 fine (s.12)

The Special Judge, Solapur, in Special Case No.17/1994 on 8 September 1997 convicted Head Constable and Constable of the Akluj outpost (Shripur) for demanding Rs.5,000 (negotiated to Rs.3,000) from a Solapur man on 9-11 October 1993 to avoid arrest in a State Farming Corporation land-dispute inquiry, catching them in an ACB trap on 11 October 1993 (CR No.159/1993, Shripur PS). On 18 January 2016 Justice Sadhana Jadhav of the Bombay High Court (Crl Appeal No.570/1997 with No.800/2015) dismissed both appeals, maintaining the conviction and sentence and directing surrender by 15 May 2016.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149347518/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-03-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-03-010)

## ACB CR No. 320/Nashik/2010 (t2-03-040)

**Record:** t2-03-040
**Title:** ACB CR No. 320/Nashik/2010
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nashik (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 320/Nashik/2010
**Conviction:** 30 January 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nashik, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, Ambad Police Station, Nashik
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; 2 mo SI; fine Rs.3,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 10) records that \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Ambad Police Station, Nashik, Nashik district, was convicted on 30 January 2016 in ACB CR No. 320/Nashik/2010 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nashik, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; 2 mo SI; fine Rs.3,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-040)

## State v. Mumbai Police Police Constable (t2w2-03-009)

**Record:** t2w2-03-009
**Title:** State v. Mumbai Police Police Constable
**Court:** City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay (Judge S.M. Bhosale) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Mumbai Police Police Constable
**Conviction:** 30 January 2016
**Incident date:** 2013-10-26 (2013)
**Place:** Mumbai, Maharashtra
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 330
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Vanrai Police Station, Goregaon, Mumbai; Police Constable, Vanrai Police Station, Goregaon, Mumbai; Police Constable, Vanrai Police Station, Goregaon, Mumbai; Police Constable, Vanrai Police Station, Goregaon, Mumbai
**Victims:** Mumbai man, age 20
**Sentence:** 7 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine each

The City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay (Judge Shridhar S.M. Bhosale), in Sessions Case SC 309/2014, on Saturday 30 January 2016 convicted four Vanrai (Goregaon) police constables — Chandrakant Kamble, Kiran Pingle, Umesh Gosavi and one more — for torturing 20-year-old theft suspect \[name withheld\] to death in custody on the night of 26 October 2013 (56 injuries; post-mortem: head injury with multiple injuries), sentencing each to 7 years RI plus Rs.10,000 fine under IPC ss.304-II and 330; the first custodial-death conviction in Maharashtra, secured after appointment of special PP Rati Amrolia. Convicts' appeals (Crl A. 236/241/250 of 2016) and the victim family's appeals (271/2016, 243/2018) were still pending before the Bombay High Court as of 24 July 2025 (stood over to 25-09-2025).

**Sources (4):** [hrw.org](https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/21/how-four-policemen-mumbai-were-convicted-torturing-and-killing-man); [IAMC.COM](https://IAMC.COM/iamc-weekly-news-roundup-february-8th-2016/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/89092543/); [hrw.org](https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/india1216_web_0.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-03-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-03-009)

## ACB CR No. 215/Pune/2010; Spl. Case No. 25/2011; GR No. 3121/2010 (t2-03-041)

**Record:** t2-03-041
**Title:** ACB CR No. 215/Pune/2010; Spl. Case No. 25/2011; GR No. 3121/2010
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Pune (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 215/Pune/2010; Spl. Case No. 25/2011; GR No. 3121/2010
**Conviction:** 20 February 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Kondhava Police Station, Pune; Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, Kondhava Police Station, Pune
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr RI; 1 mo RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 15) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Inspector) and \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Kondhava Police Station, Pune, Pune district, was convicted on 20 February 2016 in ACB CR No. 215/Pune/2010; Spl. Case No. 25/2011; GR No. 3121/2010 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Pune sentenced the accused to 3 yr RI; 1 mo RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-041](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-041)

## State (ACB) v. Hingoli Police Constable (Traffic) (t2w3-29-005)

**Record:** t2w3-29-005
**Title:** State (ACB) v. Hingoli Police Constable (Traffic)
**Court:** Designated (Special) Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act (court name, case number and conviction date not stated in appellate judgment) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) v. Hingoli Police Constable (Traffic)
**Conviction:** 8 March 2016
**Incident date:** 2005-05-25 (2005)
**Place:** Hingoli, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (Traffic), Hingoli Police, posted at Hingoli Police Station (city)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)); concurrency not stated

Per the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) judgment of 08-03-2016, Rajesh Mhaske, then a Traffic Constable with Hingoli Police posted at Hingoli Police Station (city), demanded a monthly hafta of Rs.300 from auto-rickshaw operator \[name withheld\] in May 2005 to let him ply on the Hingoli-Aundha road and accepted the bribe in an ACB trap laid on the complaint of 24-05-2005. The Designated Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act convicted him under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), and the High Court (N.W. Sambre, J.) held demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt, rejecting the appeal and cancelling his bail bonds.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/830320/rajesh-so-sakharam-mhaske-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=316102955000&Title=RAJESH-Vs.-STATE-OF-MAHARASHTRA)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-29-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-29-005)

## ACB CR No. 79/Aurangabad/2009; GR No. 3005/2009 (t2-03-043)

**Record:** t2-03-043
**Title:** ACB CR No. 79/Aurangabad/2009; GR No. 3005/2009
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 79/Aurangabad/2009; GR No. 3005/2009
**Conviction:** 28 March 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Police Station Phulambri Aurangabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 1 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 32) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Police Station Phulambri Aurangabad, Aurangabad district, was convicted on 28 March 2016 in ACB CR No. 79/Aurangabad/2009; GR No. 3005/2009 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 1 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-043](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-043)

## ACB CR No. 1067/Jalaganv/2014 (t2-03-044)

**Record:** t2-03-044
**Title:** ACB CR No. 1067/Jalaganv/2014
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Jalgaon (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 1067/Jalaganv/2014
**Conviction:** 2 April 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jalgaon, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Jalaganv Taluka Police, Jalgaon
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 2 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 34) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Jalaganv Taluka Police, Jalgaon, Jalgaon district, was convicted on 2 April 2016 in ACB CR No. 1067/Jalaganv/2014 under ss. 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Jalgaon, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 2 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-044](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-044)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-045)

**Record:** t2-03-045
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nagpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 29 April 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Nagpur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 3 mo; fine Rs.3000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 38) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Police Station, Nagpur, Nagpur district, was convicted on 29 April 2016 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nagpur, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 3 mo; fine Rs.3000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-045](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-045)

## ACB CR No. 311/Thane/04 (t2-03-046)

**Record:** t2-03-046
**Title:** ACB CR No. 311/Thane/04
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Thane (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 311/Thane/04
**Conviction:** 5 May 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Thane district); Police Head Constable, Shantinagar, Thane
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; 2 yr imprisonment; 3 mo; 6 mo; fine Rs.7000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 40) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector) and \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Thane district, was convicted on 5 May 2016 in ACB CR No. 311/Thane/04 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Thane, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; 2 yr imprisonment; 3 mo; 6 mo; fine Rs.7000. A private co-accused was also convicted in the same case.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-046](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-046)

## ACB CR No. 235/Bid/2010 (t2-03-047)

**Record:** t2-03-047
**Title:** ACB CR No. 235/Bid/2010
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Beed (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 235/Bid/2010
**Conviction:** 23 June 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Beed, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Woman Police Head Constable, Police Station Police, Beed
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 2 yr RI; 1 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 52) records that \[name withheld\] (Woman Police Head Constable), posted at Police Station Police, Beed, Beed district, was convicted on 23 June 2016 in ACB CR No. 235/Bid/2010 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Beed sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 2 yr RI; 1 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-047](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-047)

## Spl. Case No. 87/2008 (t2-03-048)

**Record:** t2-03-048
**Title:** Spl. Case No. 87/2008
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Ichalkaranji (Kolhapur district) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Spl. Case No. 87/2008
**Conviction:** 30 June 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kolhapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2); IPC s.201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Shivajinagar Police Station, Kolhapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr imprisonment; 1 yr RI; 3 mo SI; 1 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 54) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Shivajinagar Police Station, Kolhapur, Kolhapur district, was convicted on 30 June 2016 in Spl. Case No. 87/2008 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Kolhapur sentenced the accused to 2 yr imprisonment; 1 yr RI; 3 mo SI; 1 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-048](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-048)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-049)

**Record:** t2-03-049
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nashik (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 19 July 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nashik, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Nashik district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 2 yr RI; 2 mo SI; fine Rs.3000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 58) records that \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Sub-Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Nashik district, was convicted on 19 July 2016 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nashik, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 2 yr RI; 2 mo SI; fine Rs.3000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-049](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-049)

## ACB CR No. 8/Nashik/2010; GR No. 3001/2010 (t2-03-050)

**Record:** t2-03-050
**Title:** ACB CR No. 8/Nashik/2010; GR No. 3001/2010
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nashik (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 8/Nashik/2010; GR No. 3001/2010
**Conviction:** 30 July 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nashik, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Dindori Police Station, Nashik
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; 1 yr RI; 2 mo SI; fine Rs.1500

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 63) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Dindori Police Station, Nashik, Nashik district, was convicted on 30 July 2016 in ACB CR No. 8/Nashik/2010; GR No. 3001/2010 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nashik, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; 1 yr RI; 2 mo SI; fine Rs.1500.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-050](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-050)

## ACB CR No. 94/Solapur/2011; Spl. Case No. 2/2012 (t2-03-051)

**Record:** t2-03-051
**Title:** ACB CR No. 94/Solapur/2011; Spl. Case No. 2/2012
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Solapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 94/Solapur/2011; Spl. Case No. 2/2012
**Conviction:** 8 August 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Solapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Mohol Police Station, Solapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 3 mo SI; 3 mo

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 64) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Mohol Police Station, Solapur, Solapur district, was convicted on 8 August 2016 in ACB CR No. 94/Solapur/2011; Spl. Case No. 2/2012 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Solapur sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 3 mo SI; 3 mo.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-051](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-051)

## ACB CR No. 974/Kolhapur/201; Spl. Case No. 2/2015 (t2-03-052)

**Record:** t2-03-052
**Title:** ACB CR No. 974/Kolhapur/201; Spl. Case No. 2/2015
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Kolhapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 974/Kolhapur/201; Spl. Case No. 2/2015
**Conviction:** 3 October 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kolhapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik, Karavir Police Station, Kolhapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 5 mo; 5 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 72) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Naik), posted at Karavir Police Station, Kolhapur, Kolhapur district, was convicted on 3 October 2016 in ACB CR No. 974/Kolhapur/201; Spl. Case No. 2/2015 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Kolhapur sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 5 mo; 5 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-052](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-052)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-053)

**Record:** t2-03-053
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Judge, District & Sessions Court, Biloli (Nanded) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 6 October 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nanded, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Police Station, Nanded
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 74) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Inspector), posted at Police Station, Nanded, Nanded district, was convicted on 6 October 2016 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nanded, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-053](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-053)

## ACB CR No. 172/Thane/2008 (t2-03-054)

**Record:** t2-03-054
**Title:** ACB CR No. 172/Thane/2008
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Thane (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 172/Thane/2008
**Conviction:** 17 October 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Mumbra Police Station, Thane
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; 1 mo; fine Rs.5,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 75) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Constable), posted at Mumbra Police Station, Thane, Thane district, was convicted on 17 October 2016 in ACB CR No. 172/Thane/2008 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Thane, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; 1 mo; fine Rs.5,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-054](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-054)

## ACB CR No. 470/Mumbai/2014 (t2-03-056)

**Record:** t2-03-056
**Title:** ACB CR No. 470/Mumbai/2014
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (46th Court) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 470/Mumbai/2014
**Conviction:** 30 November 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Trombe Police Station, Mumbai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 2 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 83) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Trombe Police Station, Mumbai, Mumbai district, was convicted on 30 November 2016 in ACB CR No. 470/Mumbai/2014 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 2 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-056](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-056)

## Tapas 28/पुणे/2014; GR No. 43/2015 (t2-03-057)

**Record:** t2-03-057
**Title:** Tapas 28/पुणे/2014; GR No. 43/2015
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Pune (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tapas 28/पुणे/2014; GR No. 43/2015
**Conviction:** 8 December 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Maharashtra Police (Pune district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 yr RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 85) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Constable), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Pune district, was convicted on 8 December 2016 in Tapas 28/पुणे/2014; GR No. 43/2015 under ss. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Pune sentenced the accused to 4 yr RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-057](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-057)

## ACB CR No. 56/Jalaganv/2013 (t2-03-058)

**Record:** t2-03-058
**Title:** ACB CR No. 56/Jalaganv/2013
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Jalgaon (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 56/Jalaganv/2013
**Conviction:** 17 December 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jalgaon, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik, Police Station, Jalgaon; Police Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Jalgaon district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr imprisonment; 1 yr imprisonment; 6 mo; 11 mo; fine Rs.20,000/Rs.40,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 87) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Naik) and \[name withheld\] (Police Inspector), posted at Police Station, Jalgaon, Jalgaon district, was convicted on 17 December 2016 in ACB CR No. 56/Jalaganv/2013 under ss. 7, 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Jalgaon, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr imprisonment; 1 yr imprisonment; 6 mo; 11 mo; fine Rs.20,000/Rs.40,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-058](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-058)

## ACB CR No. 355/Mumbai/2014 (t2-03-059)

**Record:** t2-03-059
**Title:** ACB CR No. 355/Mumbai/2014
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (45th Court) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 355/Mumbai/2014
**Conviction:** 29 December 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Police Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Mumbai district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; 1 yr RI; fine Rs.10,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2016 (Sr. No. 88) records that \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] (Senior Police Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Mumbai district, was convicted on 29 December 2016 in ACB CR No. 355/Mumbai/2014 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; 1 yr RI; fine Rs.10,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/78.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-059](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-059)

## Spl. Case No. 9/2011 (t2-03-060)

**Record:** t2-03-060
**Title:** Spl. Case No. 9/2011
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nashik (Spl. Case No. 9/2011) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Spl. Case No. 9/2011
**Conviction:** 17 March 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nashik, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Nashik district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; 1 yr RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2017 (Sr. No. 11) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Nashik district, was convicted on 17 March 2017 in Spl. Case No. 9/2011 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Nashik (Spl. Case No. 9/2011) sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; 1 yr RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/81.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-060](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-060)

## Spl. Case No. 1/2011 (t2-03-061)

**Record:** t2-03-061
**Title:** Spl. Case No. 1/2011
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nashik (Spl. Case No. 1/2011) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Spl. Case No. 1/2011
**Conviction:** 4 May 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nashik, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Police Station, Nashik
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 3 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2017 (Sr. No. 17) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Police Station, Nashik, Nashik district, was convicted on 4 May 2017 in Spl. Case No. 1/2011 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Nashik (Spl. Case No. 1/2011) sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 3 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/81.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-061](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-061)

## ACB CR No. 48/Thane/2009 (t2-03-062)

**Record:** t2-03-062
**Title:** ACB CR No. 48/Thane/2009
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Thane (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 48/Thane/2009
**Conviction:** 4 May 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Thane district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; 2 yr imprisonment; fine Rs.500/Rs.1,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2017 (Sr. No. 18) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Thane district, was convicted on 4 May 2017 in ACB CR No. 48/Thane/2009 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Thane, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; 2 yr imprisonment; fine Rs.500/Rs.1,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/81.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-062](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-062)

## ACB CR No. 338/Thane/2011 (t2-03-063)

**Record:** t2-03-063
**Title:** ACB CR No. 338/Thane/2011
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Thane (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 338/Thane/2011
**Conviction:** 6 May 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Bhaindar Police Station, Thane
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; 6 mo

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2017 (Sr. No. 19) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Bhaindar Police Station, Thane, Thane district, was convicted on 6 May 2017 in ACB CR No. 338/Thane/2011 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Thane, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; 6 mo.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/81.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-063](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-063)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-064)

**Record:** t2-03-064
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 7 June 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Mumbai district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 6 mo

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2017 (Sr. No. 22) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Mumbai district, was convicted on 7 June 2017 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced the accused to 6 mo.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/81.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-064](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-064)

## ACB CR No. 27/Chandrapur/04 (t2-03-065)

**Record:** t2-03-065
**Title:** ACB CR No. 27/Chandrapur/04
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Chandrapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 27/Chandrapur/04
**Conviction:** 13 June 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chandrapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Sopan Marotarao Kambale Poupani Police Station, Chandrapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 3 mo RI; 1 mo; fine Rs.10,000/Rs.5,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2017 (Sr. No. 23) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at \[name withheld\] Police Station, Chandrapur, Chandrapur district, was convicted on 13 June 2017 in ACB CR No. 27/Chandrapur/04 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Chandrapur, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 3 mo RI; 1 mo; fine Rs.10,000/Rs.5,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/81.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-065](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-065)

## ACB CR No. 151/Chandrapur/03 (t2-03-066)

**Record:** t2-03-066
**Title:** ACB CR No. 151/Chandrapur/03
**Court:** Additional Sessions Court, Chandrapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 151/Chandrapur/03
**Conviction:** 15 June 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chandrapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Lingaji Daulatarao Shelake Poupani Police Station, Chandrapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 03 yr RI; 3 yr RI; 4 mo RI; 5 mo; fine Rs.10,000/Rs.12,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2017 (Sr. No. 25) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at \[name withheld\] Police Station, Chandrapur, Chandrapur district, was convicted on 15 June 2017 in ACB CR No. 151/Chandrapur/03 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Additional Sessions Court, Chandrapur sentenced the accused to 03 yr RI; 3 yr RI; 4 mo RI; 5 mo; fine Rs.10,000/Rs.12,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/81.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-066](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-066)

## ACB CR No. 236/Chandrapur/2000 (t2-03-067)

**Record:** t2-03-067
**Title:** ACB CR No. 236/Chandrapur/2000
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Chandrapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 236/Chandrapur/2000
**Conviction:** 16 June 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chandrapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Darao Namadevarao Matre Poupani Police Station, Chandrapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr RI; 6 mo RI; 4 mo; fine Rs.20,000/Rs.15,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2017 (Sr. No. 26) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at \[name withheld\] Police Station, Chandrapur, Chandrapur district, was convicted on 16 June 2017 in ACB CR No. 236/Chandrapur/2000 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Chandrapur, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr RI; 6 mo RI; 4 mo; fine Rs.20,000/Rs.15,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/81.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-067](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-067)

## ACB CR No. 143/Satara/2011; Spl. Case No. 4/2013; GR No. 14/2011 (t2-03-068)

**Record:** t2-03-068
**Title:** ACB CR No. 143/Satara/2011; Spl. Case No. 4/2013; GR No. 14/2011
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Satara (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 143/Satara/2011; Spl. Case No. 4/2013; GR No. 14/2011
**Conviction:** 19 June 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Satara, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Satara City Police Station
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 2 yr RI; 1 mo RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2017 (Sr. No. 28) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Satara City Police Station, Satara district, was convicted on 19 June 2017 in ACB CR No. 143/Satara/2011; Spl. Case No. 4/2013; GR No. 14/2011 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Satara sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 2 yr RI; 1 mo RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/81.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-068](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-068)

## State (ACB) v. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Police Police Head Constable (B.No.729) (t2w2-03-022)

**Record:** t2w2-03-022
**Title:** State (ACB) v. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Police Police Head Constable (B.No.729)
**Court:** Special Judge (AC), Aurangabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) v. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Police Police Head Constable (B.No.729)
**Conviction:** 8 December 2000
**Incident date:** 1994-09-12 (1994)
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable (B.No.729), Police Station Shivoor, Tq. Vaijapur, Aurangabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Trial: 1 yr RI + Rs.200 (s.7); 2 yrs RI + Rs.300 (s.13); HC modified to 6 mo + Rs.2,000 (s.7) and 1 yr + Rs.3,000 (s.13), concurrent

The Special Judge (AC), Aurangabad, in Special Case No.1/1995 on 8 December 2000 convicted Police Head Constable (B.No.729) of Shivoor police station for demanding Rs.3,000 (reduced to Rs.2,000) from complainant \[name withheld\] on 9 September 1994 to release his brother and cousin on bail in a crop-damage case, caught in a PI Nalawade ACB trap at the police station on 12 September 1994, sentencing him to 2 years' RI under PC Act s.13 plus 1 year under s.7. On 27 July 2017 Justice Sangitrao Patil (Aurangabad Bench, Crl Appeal No.480/2000) confirmed the convictions but reduced custody (6 months / 1 year) while enhancing fines, ordering surrender by 3 August 2017.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189252805/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-03-022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-03-022)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-069)

**Record:** t2-03-069
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Chandrapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 31 July 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chandrapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Ramanagar Chandrapur; Police (Buckle No. 1172; rank not stated in list), Maharashtra Police (Chandrapur district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 02 yr RI; 03 yr RI; 6 mo RI; 3 mo; 2 mo; fine Rs.5,000/Rs.7,500

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2017 (Sr. No. 35) records that \[name withheld\] (Assistant Sub-Inspector) and \[name withheld\] (Police (Buckle No. 1172; rank not stated in list)), posted at Police Station Ramanagar Chandrapur, Chandrapur district, was convicted on 31 July 2017 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7, 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Chandrapur, which sentenced the accused to 02 yr RI; 03 yr RI; 6 mo RI; 3 mo; 2 mo; fine Rs.5,000/Rs.7,500.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/81.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-069](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-069)

## CBI vs Railway Protection Force Constable (1984, Jhansi); posted SIPF (Adhoc) Sub-Inspector (t2w4-24-006)

**Record:** t2w4-24-006
**Title:** CBI vs Railway Protection Force Constable (1984, Jhansi); posted SIPF (Adhoc) Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge, Wardha (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Railway Protection Force Constable (1984, Jhansi); posted SIPF (Adhoc) Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 2 August 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Wardha, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (1984, Jhansi); posted SIPF (Adhoc) Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Pulgaon Outpost (under RPF Thana, Wardha), Maharashtra
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment

The Special Judge, Wardha, by judgment and order dated 02.08.2017 convicted \[name withheld\] (RPF Constable since 1984, then posted as ad-hoc Sub-Inspector at Pulgaon outpost) under PC Act ss.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) and sentenced him to one year RI with fine, in a CBI bribery case. The conviction is recorded at paras 12.7 of the Supreme Court judgment dated 25.11.2020 in Director General of Police, RPF vs \[name withheld\] (Civil Appeal No. 3820 of 2020), where counsel reported an appeal against conviction was pending; the Supreme Court declined to advert to the CBI-case findings so as not to prejudice that appeal. Trial-case number, bribe amount and fine quantum are not stated in the appellate record reviewed.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160288902/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Unknown

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-24-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-24-006)

## Tapas 20/यवतमाळ/2005 (t2-03-070)

**Record:** t2-03-070
**Title:** Tapas 20/यवतमाळ/2005
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Yavatmal (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tapas 20/यवतमाळ/2005
**Conviction:** 26 September 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Yavatmal, Maharashtra
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e); PC Act 1988 s.13(2); IPC 109
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Police Station Pusad City Dist.yavatamal Ap, Yavatmal
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr RI; 2 yr SI; fine Rs.50,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2017 (Sr. No. 46) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Inspector), posted at Police Station Pusad City Dist.yavatamal Ap, Yavatmal, Yavatmal district, was convicted on 26 September 2017 in Tapas 20/यवतमाळ/2005 under ss. 13(1)(e), 13(2) and IPC s.109 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Yavatmal, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr RI; 2 yr SI; fine Rs.50,000. A private co-accused was also convicted in the same case. This was a disproportionate-assets/benami-property case, not a trap case.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/81.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-070](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-070)

## ACB CR No. 140/Mumbai/2014; GR No. 14/2014 (t2-03-071)

**Record:** t2-03-071
**Title:** ACB CR No. 140/Mumbai/2014; GR No. 14/2014
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 140/Mumbai/2014; GR No. 14/2014
**Conviction:** 12 January 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Ajhad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr SI; 2014 mo SI; fine Rs.25000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2018 (Sr. No. 2) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Ajhad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, Mumbai district, was convicted on 12 January 2018 in ACB CR No. 140/Mumbai/2014; GR No. 14/2014 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr SI; 2014 mo SI; fine Rs.25000. A private co-accused was also convicted in the same case.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/85.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-071](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-071)

## State (ACB) v. Beed Police Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-03-016)

**Record:** t2w2-03-016
**Title:** State (ACB) v. Beed Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge, Ambajogai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) v. Beed Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 28 March 2008
**Incident date:** 2005-10-17 (2005)
**Place:** Beed, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station Kaij, District Beed
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI + Rs.5,000 fine (s.7); 6 mo RI + Rs.5,000 fine (s.13)

The Special Judge, Ambajogai, in Special Case No.3/2006 on 28 March 2008 convicted PSI of Kaij police station for demanding Rs.2,000 (settled at Rs.1,000) from complainant \[name withheld\] on 13-15 October 2005 to release his seized Mahindra car (CR under IPC s.279/MV Act, 9 October 2005) and grant bail to driver \[name withheld\], caught in an ACB trap at the police station on 17 October 2005, sentencing him to 1 year's RI under PC Act s.7 plus 6 months under s.13 with Rs.5,000 fine on each count. On 23 January 2018 Justice Sangitrao Patil (Aurangabad Bench, Crl Appeal No.124/2008) dismissed the appeal and ordered surrender within two weeks.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41035926/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-03-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-03-016)

## ACB CR No. 135/Vashim/10 (t2-03-072)

**Record:** t2-03-072
**Title:** ACB CR No. 135/Vashim/10
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Washim (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 135/Vashim/10
**Conviction:** 28 February 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Washim, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Ste Shirapur, Washim
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr imprisonment; 3 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2018 (Sr. No. 8) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Ste Shirapur, Washim, Washim district, was convicted on 28 February 2018 in ACB CR No. 135/Vashim/10 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Washim, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr imprisonment; 3 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/85.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-072](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-072)

## ACB CR No. 329/Mumbai/2014 (t2-03-073)

**Record:** t2-03-073
**Title:** ACB CR No. 329/Mumbai/2014
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 329/Mumbai/2014
**Conviction:** 31 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai City, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Mumbai district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr imprisonment

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2018 (Sr. No. 11) records that \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Mumbai district, was convicted on 31 March 2018 in ACB CR No. 329/Mumbai/2014 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr imprisonment.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/85.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-073](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-073)

## ACB CR No. 418/Mumbai/2013 (t2-03-074)

**Record:** t2-03-074
**Title:** ACB CR No. 418/Mumbai/2013
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 418/Mumbai/2013
**Conviction:** 31 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Govandi Police Station, Mumbai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; 3 mo

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2018 (Sr. No. 12) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Inspector), posted at Govandi Police Station, Mumbai, Mumbai district, was convicted on 31 March 2018 in ACB CR No. 418/Mumbai/2013 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; 3 mo.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/85.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-074](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-074)

## State v. Maharashtra Police Police Constable (suspended from service much before the incident) (t2w2-03-006)

**Record:** t2w2-03-006
**Title:** State v. Maharashtra Police Police Constable (suspended from service much before the incident)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge and Designated Judge for POCSO, Greater Bombay (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Maharashtra Police Police Constable (suspended from service much before the incident)
**Conviction:** 12 April 2018
**Incident date:** 2014-05-07 (2014)
**Place:** Mumbai, Maharashtra
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 377; IPC 506 Part I; POCSO Act 2012 s.4
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (suspended from service much before the incident), Maharashtra Police
**Victims:** Mumbai boy, age 17
**Sentence:** 10 yrs RI + Rs.20,000 fine (s.377); 2 yrs RI + Rs.5,000 fine (s.506-I); 10 yrs RI + Rs.20,000 fine (POCSO s.4); fines to victim as compensation

The Additional Sessions Judge and Designated Judge for POCSO, Greater Bombay, on 12 April 2018 convicted former police constable in POCSO Special Case No.364/2014 for sexually assaulting a \[name withheld\] on 7 May 2014 (FIR Sion C.R. No.155/2014), relying on clinching DNA and medical evidence, and sentenced him to 10 years RI under IPC s.377 and POCSO s.4 plus 2 years under s.506-I. In December 2022 Justice Sarang Kotwal maintained the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone (8+ years) citing good jail conduct.

**Sources (2):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2310000130120188watermark-1444325.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/amp/court-updates/high-courts/reduction-of-sentence-constable-sexual-assault-minor-boy-good-behaviour-in-jail-1451270)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-03-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-03-006)

## ACB CR No. 942/Aubad/2014 (t2-03-075)

**Record:** t2-03-075
**Title:** ACB CR No. 942/Aubad/2014
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 942/Aubad/2014
**Conviction:** 23 April 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Nem Police Station, Aurangabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr imprisonment; 1988 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2018 (Sr. No. 20) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Nem Police Station, Aurangabad, Aurangabad district, was convicted on 23 April 2018 in ACB CR No. 942/Aubad/2014 under ss. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr imprisonment; 1988 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/85.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-075](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-075)

## Spl. Case No. 05/2009 (t2-03-076)

**Record:** t2-03-076
**Title:** Spl. Case No. 05/2009
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Chandrapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Spl. Case No. 05/2009
**Conviction:** 11 May 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chandrapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Police Station Pombhurna Dist. Chandrapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr imprisonment; 3 mo; fine Rs.10,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2018 (Sr. No. 27) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Constable), posted at Police Station Pombhurna Dist. Chandrapur, Chandrapur district, was convicted on 11 May 2018 in Spl. Case No. 05/2009 under s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Chandrapur sentenced the accused to 3 yr imprisonment; 3 mo; fine Rs.10,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/85.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-076](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-076)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-077)

**Record:** t2-03-077
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Chandrapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 23 May 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chandrapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Chandrapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr imprisonment; 1 mo; fine Rs.2,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2018 (Sr. No. 30) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Police Station, Chandrapur, Chandrapur district, was convicted on 23 May 2018 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Chandrapur, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr imprisonment; 1 mo; fine Rs.2,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/85.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-077](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-077)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-079)

**Record:** t2-03-079
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nashik (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 21 August 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nashik, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, VadivaÚhe Police Station, Nashik
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr SI; 6 mo SI; 1 mo SI; fine Rs.1000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2018 (Sr. No. 37) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at VadivaÚhe Police Station, Nashik, Nashik district, was convicted on 21 August 2018 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nashik, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr SI; 6 mo SI; 1 mo SI; fine Rs.1000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/85.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-079](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-079)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-082)

**Record:** t2-03-082
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 2 April 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Aurangabad district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr imprisonment; 3 yr RI; 6 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2019 (Sr. No. 13) records that \[name withheld\] (Assistant Sub-Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Aurangabad district, was convicted on 2 April 2019 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7, 13 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr imprisonment; 3 yr RI; 6 mo SI. A private co-accused was also convicted in the same case.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/116.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-082](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-082)

## ACB CR No. 184/Mumbai/2014 (t2-03-083)

**Record:** t2-03-083
**Title:** ACB CR No. 184/Mumbai/2014
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 184/Mumbai/2014
**Conviction:** 3 April 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr imprisonment; 4 yr imprisonment; 3 mo SI; fine Rs.5000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2019 (Sr. No. 14) records that \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, Mumbai district, was convicted on 3 April 2019 in ACB CR No. 184/Mumbai/2014 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr imprisonment; 4 yr imprisonment; 3 mo SI; fine Rs.5000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/116.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-083](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-083)

## ACB CR No. 882/Thane/2014 (t2-03-084)

**Record:** t2-03-084
**Title:** ACB CR No. 882/Thane/2014
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Thane (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 882/Thane/2014
**Conviction:** 17 May 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Traffic Branch, Thane
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 2 yr imprisonment; 2 mo SI; fine Rs.2,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2019 (Sr. No. 20) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Traffic Branch, Thane, Thane district, was convicted on 17 May 2019 in ACB CR No. 882/Thane/2014 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Thane, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 2 yr imprisonment; 2 mo SI; fine Rs.2,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/116.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-084](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-084)

## ACB CR No. 359/Thane/2010 (t2-03-085)

**Record:** t2-03-085
**Title:** ACB CR No. 359/Thane/2010
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Thane (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 359/Thane/2010
**Conviction:** 17 May 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Thane district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 1 yr imprisonment; 1 mo SI; fine Rs.5,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2019 (Sr. No. 21) records that \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Sub-Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Thane district, was convicted on 17 May 2019 in ACB CR No. 359/Thane/2010 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Thane, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 1 yr imprisonment; 1 mo SI; fine Rs.5,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/116.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-085](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-085)

## ACB CR No. 46/Aubad/2011; GR No. 3004/2011 (t2-03-086)

**Record:** t2-03-086
**Title:** ACB CR No. 46/Aubad/2011; GR No. 3004/2011
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 46/Aubad/2011; GR No. 3004/2011
**Conviction:** 30 May 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Maharashtra Police (Aurangabad district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 3 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2019 (Sr. No. 23) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Aurangabad district, was convicted on 30 May 2019 in ACB CR No. 46/Aubad/2011; GR No. 3004/2011 under s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 3 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/116.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-086](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-086)

## ACB CR No. 114/Nanded/2014; GR No. 08/2014 (t2-03-088)

**Record:** t2-03-088
**Title:** ACB CR No. 114/Nanded/2014; GR No. 08/2014
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nanded (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 114/Nanded/2014; GR No. 08/2014
**Conviction:** 19 June 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nanded, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station Sindakhed Dist. Nanded
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr imprisonment; 6 mo; fine Rs.2000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2019 (Sr. No. 26) records that \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Police Station Sindakhed Dist. Nanded, Nanded district, was convicted on 19 June 2019 in ACB CR No. 114/Nanded/2014; GR No. 08/2014 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nanded, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr imprisonment; 6 mo; fine Rs.2000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/116.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-088](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-088)

## ACB CR No. 500/Jalaganv/2015; Spl. Case No. 38/2015; GR No. 3057/2015 (t2-03-089)

**Record:** t2-03-089
**Title:** ACB CR No. 500/Jalaganv/2015; Spl. Case No. 38/2015; GR No. 3057/2015
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Jalgaon (Spl. Case No. 38/2015) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 500/Jalaganv/2015; Spl. Case No. 38/2015; GR No. 3057/2015
**Conviction:** 27 August 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jalgaon, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik, Mehunabare Police Station Dist. Jalaganv, Jalgaon
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr RI; 4 yr RI; 3 mo SI; fine Rs.2,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2019 (Sr. No. 36) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Naik), posted at Mehunabare Police Station Dist. Jalaganv, Jalgaon, Jalgaon district, was convicted on 27 August 2019 in ACB CR No. 500/Jalaganv/2015; Spl. Case No. 38/2015; GR No. 3057/2015 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Jalgaon (Spl. Case No. 38/2015) sentenced the accused to 3 yr RI; 4 yr RI; 3 mo SI; fine Rs.2,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/116.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-089](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-089)

## ACB CR No. 87/Mumbai/2015; Spl. Case No. 11/15 (t2-03-090)

**Record:** t2-03-090
**Title:** ACB CR No. 87/Mumbai/2015; Spl. Case No. 11/15
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (Spl. Case No. 11/15) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 87/Mumbai/2015; Spl. Case No. 11/15
**Conviction:** 30 August 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Manakhurd Police Station, Mumbai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 yr RI; fine Rs.5000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2019 (Sr. No. 37) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Inspector), posted at Manakhurd Police Station, Mumbai, Mumbai district, was convicted on 30 August 2019 in ACB CR No. 87/Mumbai/2015; Spl. Case No. 11/15 under s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai (Spl. Case No. 11/15) sentenced the accused to 4 yr RI; fine Rs.5000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/116.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-090](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-090)

## ACB CR No. 74/Nagar/2017; GR No. 3007/2017 (t2-03-091)

**Record:** t2-03-091
**Title:** ACB CR No. 74/Nagar/2017; GR No. 3007/2017
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Ahmednagar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 74/Nagar/2017; GR No. 3007/2017
**Conviction:** 21 September 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Rahuri Police Station, Ahmednagar
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr SI; fine Rs.1,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2019 (Sr. No. 40) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Rahuri Police Station, Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar district, was convicted on 21 September 2019 in ACB CR No. 74/Nagar/2017; GR No. 3007/2017 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Ahmednagar, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr SI; fine Rs.1,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/116.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-091](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-091)

## ACB CR No. 88/Nashik/2012 (t2-03-092)

**Record:** t2-03-092
**Title:** ACB CR No. 88/Nashik/2012
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nashik (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 88/Nashik/2012
**Conviction:** 2 November 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nashik, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, Vadaner Khakurdi Police Station, Nashik
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 yr RI; 3 yr RI; 2 mo; fine Rs.5,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2019 (Sr. No. 46) records that \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Vadaner Khakurdi Police Station, Nashik, Nashik district, was convicted on 2 November 2019 in ACB CR No. 88/Nashik/2012 under ss. 7, 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nashik, which sentenced the accused to 4 yr RI; 3 yr RI; 2 mo; fine Rs.5,000. A private co-accused was also convicted in the same case.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/116.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-092](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-092)

## ACB CR No. 480/Solapur/2016 (t2-03-093)

**Record:** t2-03-093
**Title:** ACB CR No. 480/Solapur/2016
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Solapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 480/Solapur/2016
**Conviction:** 5 November 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Solapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Mohol Police Station, Solapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr RI; 4 yr RI; 6 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2019 (Sr. No. 48) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Inspector), posted at Mohol Police Station, Solapur, Solapur district, was convicted on 5 November 2019 in ACB CR No. 480/Solapur/2016 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Solapur sentenced the accused to 3 yr RI; 4 yr RI; 6 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/116.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-093](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-093)

## ACB CR No. 879/Satara/2015 (t2-03-094)

**Record:** t2-03-094
**Title:** ACB CR No. 879/Satara/2015
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Satara (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 879/Satara/2015
**Conviction:** 29 November 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Satara, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Koregav Park Police Station, Satara
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 yr RI; 4 yr imprisonment; 3 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2019 (Sr. No. 51) records that \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Koregav Park Police Station, Satara, Satara district, was convicted on 29 November 2019 in ACB CR No. 879/Satara/2015 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Satara sentenced the accused to 4 yr RI; 4 yr imprisonment; 3 mo SI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/116.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-094](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-094)

## ACB CR No. 374/Bid/2012; GR No. 14/2012 (t2-03-095)

**Record:** t2-03-095
**Title:** ACB CR No. 374/Bid/2012; GR No. 14/2012
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Beed (inferred — list does not name the deciding court; PC Act trials lie only before a Special Judge) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 374/Bid/2012; GR No. 14/2012
**Conviction:** 2 January 2020
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Beed, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, Nirikshak Police Station, Beed
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 1 mo RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2020 (Sr. No. 1) records that \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Nirikshak Police Station, Beed, Beed district, was convicted on 2 January 2020 in ACB CR No. 374/Bid/2012; GR No. 14/2012 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Beed, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 1 mo RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/128.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-095](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-095)

## ACB CR No. 215/Pune/2013; Spl. Case No. 18/2014 (t2-03-096)

**Record:** t2-03-096
**Title:** ACB CR No. 215/Pune/2013; Spl. Case No. 18/2014
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Baramati, Dist. Pune (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 215/Pune/2013; Spl. Case No. 18/2014
**Conviction:** 24 February 2020
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Yavat Police Station, Pune
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; 2 yr imprisonment; 6 mo RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2020 (Sr. No. 2) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Yavat Police Station, Pune, Pune district, was convicted on 24 February 2020 in ACB CR No. 215/Pune/2013; Spl. Case No. 18/2014 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Pune sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; 2 yr imprisonment; 6 mo RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/128.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-096](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-096)

## ACB CR No. 278/Jalaganv/2016 (t2-03-097)

**Record:** t2-03-097
**Title:** ACB CR No. 278/Jalaganv/2016
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Jalgaon (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 278/Jalaganv/2016
**Conviction:** 29 June 2020
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jalgaon, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik, Chalisaganv Shahar Police Station, Jalgaon
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr RI; 4 yr imprisonment; 3 yr imprisonment; 3 mo; 3 mo SI; fine Rs.2,000/Rs.1,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2020 (Sr. No. 7) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Naik), posted at Chalisaganv Shahar Police Station, Jalgaon, Jalgaon district, was convicted on 29 June 2020 in ACB CR No. 278/Jalaganv/2016 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Jalgaon, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr RI; 4 yr imprisonment; 3 yr imprisonment; 3 mo; 3 mo SI; fine Rs.2,000/Rs.1,000. A private co-accused was also convicted in the same case.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/128.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-097](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-097)

## ACB CR No. 167/Thane/2009 (t2-03-098)

**Record:** t2-03-098
**Title:** ACB CR No. 167/Thane/2009
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Thane (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 167/Thane/2009
**Conviction:** 3 February 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thane, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik, Maharashtra Police (Thane district); Police Naik, Maharashtra Police (Thane district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 yr RI; 1 mo

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2021 (Sr. No. 1) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Naik) and \[name withheld\] (Police Naik), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Thane district, was convicted on 3 February 2021 in ACB CR No. 167/Thane/2009 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Thane, which sentenced the accused to 4 yr RI; 1 mo.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/135.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-098](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-098)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-099)

**Record:** t2-03-099
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Amravati (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 27 August 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Amravati, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Rajya Guptavarta, Amravati
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 1 yr imprisonment; 6 mo RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2021 (Sr. No. 10) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Rajya Guptavarta, Amravati, Amravati district, was convicted on 27 August 2021 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Amravati, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 1 yr imprisonment; 6 mo RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/135.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-099](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-099)

## GR No. 3017/2015 (t2-03-100)

**Record:** t2-03-100
**Title:** GR No. 3017/2015
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Bhandara (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** GR No. 3017/2015
**Conviction:** 10 November 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bhandara, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Station Mohadi, Bhandara
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr RI; 4 yr RI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2021 (Sr. No. 15) records that \[name withheld\] (Assistant Sub-Inspector), posted at Station Mohadi, Bhandara, Bhandara district, was convicted on 10 November 2021 in GR No. 3017/2015 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Bhandara, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr RI; 4 yr RI.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/135.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-100](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-100)

## Tapas 12/अकोला/1997; GR No. 151/1997 (t2-03-102)

**Record:** t2-03-102
**Title:** Tapas 12/अकोला/1997; GR No. 151/1997
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Akola (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tapas 12/अकोला/1997; GR No. 151/1997
**Conviction:** 18 January 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Akola, Maharashtra
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e); PC Act 1988 s.13(2); Benami Transactions Act s.3
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Akola district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 2 yr imprisonment; 27 yr imprisonment; 2 mo; fine Rs.50,000/Rs.10,000/Rs.25,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2022 (Sr. No. 1) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Akola district, was convicted on 18 January 2022 in Tapas 12/अकोला/1997; GR No. 151/1997 under ss. 13(1)(e), 13(2) and Benami Act s.3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Akola, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 2 yr imprisonment; 27 yr imprisonment; 2 mo; fine Rs.50,000/Rs.10,000/Rs.25,000. A private co-accused was also convicted in the same case. This was a disproportionate-assets/benami-property case, not a trap case.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/157.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-102](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-102)

## ACB CR No. 330/Pune/2014; Spl. Case No. 26/2016 (t2-03-103)

**Record:** t2-03-103
**Title:** ACB CR No. 330/Pune/2014; Spl. Case No. 26/2016
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Pune (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 330/Pune/2014; Spl. Case No. 26/2016
**Conviction:** 27 May 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Pune district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr imprisonment; fine Rs.15000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2022 (Sr. No. 14) records that \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Pune district, was convicted on 27 May 2022 in ACB CR No. 330/Pune/2014; Spl. Case No. 26/2016 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Pune sentenced the accused to 3 yr imprisonment; fine Rs.15000.

**Sources (3):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/157.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics); [acbmaharashtra.gov.in](https://acbmaharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-103](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-103)

## State (ACB) v. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Police Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-03-015)

**Record:** t2w2-03-015
**Title:** State (ACB) v. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge, Aurangabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) v. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Police Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 28 March 2005
**Incident date:** 2001-05-01 (2001)
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Mahanubhav Ashram Police Chowki / Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 6 mo RI + Rs.250 fine (s.7); 1 yr RI + Rs.250 fine (s.13)

The Special Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No.22/2001 on 28 March 2005 convicted PSI for demanding Rs.1,000 (settled at Rs.500) from \[name withheld\]-complainant \[name withheld\] on 29-30 May 2001 to act on his police complaint and arrest Dr. Abdul Hameed, caught in an ACB trap accepting five anthracene-smeared Rs.100 notes at the Mahanubhav Ashram police chowki, sentencing him to 1 year's RI under PC Act s.13 plus 6 months under s.7. On 17 June 2022 Justice R.G. Avachat (Aurangabad Bench, Crl Appeal No.228/2005, pursued by Chavan's widow after his death) dismissed the appeal, upholding the well-reasoned conviction. Exact trap date not stated; May 2001 from demand sequence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8784542/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-03-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-03-015)

## ACB CR No. 5/Sangali/2012 (t2-03-104)

**Record:** t2-03-104
**Title:** ACB CR No. 5/Sangali/2012
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Sangli (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 5/Sangali/2012
**Conviction:** 15 July 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sangli, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Sangali Rural Police Station, Sangli
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 6 mo; 1 mo RI; 6 mo RI; fine Rs.5000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2022 (Sr. No. 17) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Sangali Rural Police Station, Sangli, Sangli district, was convicted on 15 July 2022 in ACB CR No. 5/Sangali/2012 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Sangli sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 6 mo; 1 mo RI; 6 mo RI; fine Rs.5000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/157.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-104](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-104)

## ACB CR No. 150/Amaravati/2011; Spl. Case No. 07/2011; GR No. 3005/2011 (t2-03-105)

**Record:** t2-03-105
**Title:** ACB CR No. 150/Amaravati/2011; Spl. Case No. 07/2011; GR No. 3005/2011
**Court:** District and Sessions Court, Amravati (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 150/Amaravati/2011; Spl. Case No. 07/2011; GR No. 3005/2011
**Conviction:** 12 August 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Amravati, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (Retd.), Police Station Nandagav Peth Amaravati Shahar, Amravati
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 01 yr imprisonment; 6 mo; fine Rs.5000/Rs.10,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2022 (Sr. No. 21) records that \[name withheld\] (Assistant Sub-Inspector (Retd.)), posted at Police Station Nandagav Peth Amaravati Shahar, Amravati, Amravati district, was convicted on 12 August 2022 in ACB CR No. 150/Amaravati/2011; Spl. Case No. 07/2011; GR No. 3005/2011 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The District and Sessions Court, Amravati sentenced the accused to 01 yr imprisonment; 6 mo; fine Rs.5000/Rs.10,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/157.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-105](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-105)

## ACB CR No. 832/Latur/2016; Spl. Case No. 03/2017; GR No. 168/2016 (t2-03-106)

**Record:** t2-03-106
**Title:** ACB CR No. 832/Latur/2016; Spl. Case No. 03/2017; GR No. 168/2016
**Court:** District and Sessions Court, Latur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 832/Latur/2016; Spl. Case No. 03/2017; GR No. 168/2016
**Conviction:** 18 August 2022
**Incident date:** 2016-11-04 (2016)
**Place:** Latur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik, Police Station Killari Dist. Latur Ra. Subhash, Ahmednagar
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** sentence as in list (see source PDF)

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2022 (Sr. No. 22) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Naik), posted at Police Station Killari Dist. Latur Ra. Subhash, Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar district, was convicted on 18 August 2022 in ACB CR No. 832/Latur/2016; Spl. Case No. 03/2017; GR No. 168/2016 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The District and Sessions Court, Ahmednagar sentenced the accused to sentence as in list (see source PDF).

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/157.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-106](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-106)

## ACB CR No. 504/Solapur/2018; Spl. Case No. 4/2018 (t2-03-107)

**Record:** t2-03-107
**Title:** ACB CR No. 504/Solapur/2018; Spl. Case No. 4/2018
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Solapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 504/Solapur/2018; Spl. Case No. 4/2018
**Conviction:** 16 September 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Solapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Railway Police Station Solapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 yr RI; fine Rs.2000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2022 (Sr. No. 24) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Railway Police Station Solapur, Solapur district, was convicted on 16 September 2022 in ACB CR No. 504/Solapur/2018; Spl. Case No. 4/2018 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court (PC Act), Solapur sentenced the accused to 5 yr RI; fine Rs.2000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/157.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-107](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-107)

## ACB CR No. 324/Kolhapur/2006; GR No. 150/2006 (t2-03-108)

**Record:** t2-03-108
**Title:** ACB CR No. 324/Kolhapur/2006; GR No. 150/2006
**Court:** Bombay High Court (on appeal; trial: Special Court (PC Act), Kolhapur — acquitted 13-01-2016) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 324/Kolhapur/2006; GR No. 150/2006
**Conviction:** 17 February 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kolhapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7 (conviction; charged under ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2))
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Kolhapur district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 6 mo; fine Rs.5,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2023 (Sr. No. 6) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Kolhapur district, was convicted on 17 February 2023 in ACB CR No. 324/Kolhapur/2006; GR No. 150/2006 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Kolhapur, which sentenced the accused to 6 mo; fine Rs.5,000. Another accused in the same case was acquitted.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/167.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-108](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-108)

## ACB CR No. 650/Nanded/2016 (t2-03-109)

**Record:** t2-03-109
**Title:** ACB CR No. 650/Nanded/2016
**Court:** Special Judge (PC Act), Nanded (inferred) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 650/Nanded/2016
**Conviction:** 11 August 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nanded, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Naik, Station, Nanded
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr imprisonment; fine Rs.2,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2023 (Sr. No. 14) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Naik), posted at Station, Nanded, Nanded district, was convicted on 11 August 2023 in ACB CR No. 650/Nanded/2016 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nanded, which sentenced the accused to 1 yr imprisonment; fine Rs.2,000.

**Sources (3):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/167.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics); [acbmaharashtra.gov.in](https://acbmaharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-109](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-109)

## CBI v. Railway Protection Force Constable (then Constable) (t2-13-019)

**Record:** t2-13-019
**Title:** CBI v. Railway Protection Force Constable (then Constable)
**Court:** Special Judge, PC Act Cases, Solapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** CBI v. Railway Protection Force Constable (then Constable)
**Conviction:** 17 January 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Solapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (then Constable), Railway Protection Force (RPF), Kurduwadi, Solapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 5 years + fine Rs 4,500

The Special Judge for PC Act cases, Solapur sentenced RPF Constable to 5 years' RI with fine for taking Rs 10,000 from a tour-and-travel employee and further demanding Rs 100 per passenger per day on railway tickets booked by the company. The CBI registered the case in April 2013 and chargesheeted him in August 2023. RPF is a railway police force; included as police personnel per broad construction.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NjA2NQ==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-019)

## Mumbai Suburban Man & Ors. v. \[name withheld\] of Maharashtra & Ors. (\[name withheld\] fake-encounter appeals; Criminal Appeal Nos. 854/2013 and 350/2015 against acquittal; citation \[2024\]BHC-AS:13217-DB) (t2w4-04-001)

**Record:** t2w4-04-001
**Title:** Mumbai Suburban Man & Ors. v. \[name withheld\] of Maharashtra & Ors. (\[name withheld\] fake-encounter appeals; Criminal Appeal Nos. 854/2013 and 350/2015 against acquittal; citation \[2024\]BHC-AS:13217-DB)
**Court:** Bombay High Court, Appellate Side (Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse) — conviction entered 19-03-2024 reversing acquittal dated 12-07-2013 by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay (Sessions Case No. 317/2010) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Mumbai Suburban Man & Ors. v. \[name withheld\] of Maharashtra & Ors. (\[name withheld\] fake-encounter appeals; Criminal Appeal Nos. 854/2013 and 350/2015 against acquittal; citation \[2024\]BHC-AS:13217-DB)
**Conviction:** 19 March 2024
**Incident date:** 2006-11-11 (2006)
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B r/w 364; IPC 120B r/w 365; IPC 120B r/w 368; IPC 368; IPC 120B r/w 302; IPC 364 r/w 109 r/w 120B; IPC 365 r/w 109 r/w 120B; IPC 344 r/w 34; IPC 302 r/w 34; IPC 201 r/w 109 r/w 120B; IPC 119
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Inspector (encounter specialist; D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai at the time), Mumbai Police
**Victims:** Mumbai Suburban man
**Sentence:** Imprisonment for life on the murder/kidnapping counts (120B r/w 364; 120B r/w 302; 364 r/w 109 r/w 120B; 302 r/w 34) + 7 years RI on the abduction counts + 3 years RI on the remaining counts; all substantive sentences concurrent; surrender before the appropriate court within three weeks

On 19 March 2024 the Bombay High Court (Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse) quashed the 12 July 2013 acquittal of encounter specialist \[name withheld\] by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay (Sessions Case No. 317/2010) and convicted him for the abduction and staged-encounter murder of a Mumbai Suburban man at Versova on 11 November 2006, imposing life imprisonment on the murder counts with all sentences concurrent and directing surrender within three weeks. The court held the prosecution had proved the formation of Sharma's police squad, the wrongful confinement and criminal abduction of the victim, and the fake encounter. The life terms of the 13 other (mostly police) convicts from the 2013 trial were upheld in the same judgment and are covered by sibling rows; Sharma's 2024 conviction on the \[name withheld\]/complainant appeals against his acquittal is a distinct in-band guilty finding. Sharma appealed to the Supreme Court (\[name withheld\] vs \[name withheld\] of Maharashtra), which granted him interim relief while refusing to suspend the conviction for contesting assembly elections; appeal therefore pending.

**Sources (4):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/ordjud-1602245.pdf); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-grants-interim-relief-convicted-former-cop-pradeep-sharma-fake-encounter-case); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-mumbai-police-encounter-specialist-pradeep-sharma-acquittal-fake-encounter-case-lakhan-bhaiya-252769); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/nitin-gorakhnath-sartape-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-2024bhc-as13217-db-bombay-fake-encounter-policeman-life-imprisonment-1527001)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-04-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-04-001)

## ACB CR No. 533/Nagapur/2017 (t2-03-110)

**Record:** t2-03-110
**Title:** ACB CR No. 533/Nagapur/2017
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nagpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 533/Nagapur/2017
**Conviction:** 30 April 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Station Ema.aya.di.si Nagapur City, Nagpur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** ३ yr imprisonment; ४ yr RI; ८ mo RI; fine Rs.५०,०००

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2024 (Sr. No. 5) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Station Ema.aya.di.si Nagapur City, Nagpur, Nagpur district, was convicted on 30 April 2024 in ACB CR No. 533/Nagapur/2017 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nagpur, which sentenced the accused to ३ yr imprisonment; ४ yr RI; ८ mo RI; fine Rs.५०,०००.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/v9sEYKRtKQJLSrBE2pSwQ5arFRR4FWvHCrE8SYQU.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-110](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-110)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-111)

**Record:** t2-03-111
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Judge (PC Act), Nagpur (inferred) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 4 May 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7 (officer); s.7A applies to second accused only
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Nagpur district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 yr RI; 52 yr imprisonment; 3 yr RI; १० mo RI; fine Rs.५०,०००/Rs.२००००

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2024 (Sr. No. 6) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Nagpur district, was convicted on 4 May 2024 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nagpur, which sentenced the accused to 4 yr RI; 52 yr imprisonment; 3 yr RI; १० mo RI; fine Rs.५०,०००/Rs.२००००.

**Sources (3):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/v9sEYKRtKQJLSrBE2pSwQ5arFRR4FWvHCrE8SYQU.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics); [acbmaharashtra.gov.in](https://acbmaharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-111](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-111)

## State (ACB) v. Seminary Hills Police Head Constable and others (t2w2-03-025)

**Record:** t2w2-03-025
**Title:** State (ACB) v. Seminary Hills Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Special Judge, Aurangabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) v. Seminary Hills Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 29 March 2004
**Incident date:** 1999-01-01 (1999)
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Seminary Hills Police Chowky, Police Station Sadar, Nagpur; Police Constable (Head Constable by appeal time), Seminary Hills Police Chowky, Police Station Sadar, Nagpur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Each: 6 mo RI + Rs.500 (ss.7/12); 1 yr RI + Rs.1,000 (s.13)

The Special Court (PC Act), Nagpur, in Special Criminal Case No.19/1994 on 29 March 2004 convicted Head Constable (A-1) and Constable (A-2) of the Seminary Hills chowky (PS Sadar) for demanding Rs.5,000 (negotiated to Rs.500) from complainant \[name withheld\] on 15 June 1993 to hush up his wife's harassment complaint, detaining him four hours and threatening jail, caught in an ACB Nagpur trap on 19 June 1993 (A-1 demanded, A-2 accepted), sentencing each to 1 year's RI under PC Act s.13 plus 6 months under ss.7/12. On 22 April 2024 Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke (Nagpur Bench, Crl Appeal No.239/2004, 2024:BHC-NAG:4570, pursued by both officers' legal heirs after their deaths) dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/135471305/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26041735/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-03-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-03-025)

## State v. Gondia Police Police Sub-Inspector and others (t2w2-03-008)

**Record:** t2w2-03-008
**Title:** State v. Gondia Police Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia (Sessions Trial No.21/1996) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Gondia Police Police Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** 25 September 2024
**Incident date:** 1995-12-07 (1995)
**Place:** Gondia, Maharashtra
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II r/w 34; IPC 331 r/w 34; IPC 330 r/w 34; IPC 348 r/w 34; IPC 387 r/w 34; IPC 201 r/w 34; IPC 218 r/w 34; IPC 202 r/w 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Gondia City Police Station (Detective Branch), Dist. Bhandara (now Gondia); Police Constable (P.C.B. No.409), Gondia City Police Station (Detective Branch); Police Constable (P.C.B. No.409 per judgment), Gondia City Police Station (Detective Branch); Police Constable (P.C.B. No.1301), Gondia City Police Station (Detective Branch); Police Constable (P.C.B. No.735), Gondia City Police Station (Detective Branch); Police Constable (Batch No.997), Police Station Gondia; Police Constable (Batch No.91), Police Station Gondia
**Victims:** Gondia man
**Sentence:** A-2 & A-4: 7 yrs RI + Rs.4,000 (s.304-II); A-2/A-3/A-4/A-5: 3 yrs RI + Rs.1,000 (s.331); 1 yr RI + Rs.1,000 (ss.330/348/387); A-3/A-5/A-6/A-7: 3 mo RI + Rs.500 (s.202); A-2..A-7: 1 yr RI + Rs.1,000 (ss.201/218); concurrent

In Sessions Trial No.21/1996 the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, convicted seven Gondia City police personnel — PSI (A-1), constables \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\] (A-3), \[name withheld\] (A-4), \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] — for the custodial torture and death of history-sheeter \[name withheld\] (taken into custody 7 December 1995, tortured in the Detective Branch room; body burnt and buried in MP, with a decoy passed off as an escapee), sentencing A-2 and A-4 to 7 years RI under IPC s.304-II/34 plus terms under ss.331/330/348/387/201/218 (full names and ranks from the Bombay High Court judgment, Crl Appeals 64-65/71/76-77/88 of 1997). The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench, Justice A.H. Joshi) confirmed the convictions on 12 July 2011 (except s.201/34); on 25 September 2024 the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict (2024 INSC 734) — acquittal vs confirmation — leaving final appellate outcome pending before a larger bench. Exact trial judgment date not stated in either appellate judgment; 1997 per appeal numbering.

**Sources (3):** [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/manik-v-the-state-of-maharashtrawatermark-1655838.pdf); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/708824/); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/amp/court-updates/supreme-court/manik-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-2024-insc-734-split-verdict-custodial-death-case-1552648)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-03-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-03-008)

## State (ACB) v. Nagpur Police Police Head Constable and others (t2w3-29-009)

**Record:** t2w3-29-009
**Title:** State (ACB) v. Nagpur Police Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act (place not stated in appellate text; Bhiwapur PS case, Nagpur district) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) v. Nagpur Police Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 17 March 2006
**Incident date:** 1997-01-03 (1997)
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Bhiwapur Police Station, Nagpur district (r/o Kanhan)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2))

Per the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) judgment of 07-10-2024, Ramesh Margamwar, then a Police Head Constable entrusted with executing a non-bailable warrant against complainant \[name withheld\] (Criminal Case No.70/1990, JMFC Pauni), met him on 02-01-1997 and demanded Rs.1,000 for not executing the warrant and not arresting him, accepting Rs.45 of it at Bhiwapur (the balance via a tea-stall owner, accused No.2 who died during proceedings) in an ACB trap on 03-01-1997. The Special Court convicted him on 17-03-2006 in Special Criminal Case No.3/1998, and the High Court (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) applied the s.20 presumption on proved gratification, dismissing the appeal.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81769641/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-29-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-29-009)

## State v. Maharashtra Police Police personnel (rank not stated) (t2w2-03-004)

**Record:** t2w2-03-004
**Title:** State v. Maharashtra Police Police personnel (rank not stated)
**Court:** 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Maharashtra Police Police personnel (rank not stated)
**Conviction:** date not stated; before the Bombay High Court decided the appeal on 11 August 2003
**Incident date:** 2001-02-24 (2001)
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 498A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel (rank not stated), Maharashtra Police
**Victims:** Nagpur woman
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment for murder (IPC s.302): the Sessions Court's death sentence was commuted to life by the Bombay High Court on 11 August 2003. Also 3 years RI and Rs 3,000 fine under s.498-A; acquitted under s.304-B.

The 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No.301/2001 convicted a police-department employee of strangling his wife on 24 February 2001 over unfulfilled dowry demands, sentencing him to death under IPC s.302 plus 3 years RI under s.498-A (acquitted under s.304-B); the trial judgment's exact date is not stated in the orders on record. On 11 August 2003 the Bombay High Court (Criminal Appeal No.141/2003 with Confirmation Case No.2/2003) upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The cited source is a later Bombay High Court order of 26 November 2024 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 38 of 2024, which records this history.

**Sources (2):** [lawtrend.in](https://lawtrend.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Pradipsingh-Thakur-vs-State-of-Maharashtra.pdf); [verdictum.in](https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/pradipsingh-murlidharsingh-thakur-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-2024bhc-nag13098-db-bombay-high-court-1559889)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-03-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-03-004)

## State (ACB) v. Ahilyanagar Police Constable and others (t2w3-29-006)

**Record:** t2w3-29-006
**Title:** State (ACB) v. Ahilyanagar Police Constable and others
**Court:** Special Judge, Ahmednagar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) v. Ahilyanagar Police Constable and others
**Conviction:** 8 February 2005
**Incident date:** 2000-01-01 (2000)
**Place:** Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Nagar Taluka Police Station, Ahmednagar district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** not stated in appellate text (conviction under ss.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); sentence details not extracted)

Per the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) judgment of 03-01-2025, Ashok Kasar, then a Constable at Nagar Taluka Police Station, demanded and accepted bribe money at the police station on behalf of PSI, who had threatened to detain the complainant mother after booking his brother (Crime No.55/2000) unless paid (Rs.25,000 demanded, settled at Rs.8,000 in two instalments); \[name withheld\] accepted the tainted money, kept it in his watch pocket, and tried to flee over a wall when the ACB raiding party moved in. The Special Judge, Ahmednagar convicted him on 08-02-2005 in Special Case No.10/2001, and the High Court (Abhay S. Waghvase, J.) held demand and acceptance proved by the complainant and shadow pancha, dismissing the appeal.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88042053/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-29-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-29-006)

## ACB CR No. 301/Nandurabar/2013; GR No. 89/2013 (t2-03-112)

**Record:** t2-03-112
**Title:** ACB CR No. 301/Nandurabar/2013; GR No. 89/2013
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nandurbar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 301/Nandurabar/2013; GR No. 89/2013
**Conviction:** 29 April 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nandurbar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.353; IPC s.323; IPC s.506 (convictions); acquitted of PC Act s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, Navapur Police Station, Nandurbar; Assistant Police Inspector, Nema. Navapur Police Station, Nandurbar
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr RI; 3 mo SI; fine Rs.1,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2025 (Sr. No. 7) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Constable) and \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Inspector), posted at Navapur Police Station, Nandurbar, Nandurbar district, was convicted on 29 April 2025 in ACB CR No. 301/Nandurabar/2013; GR No. 89/2013 under ss. 7 and IPC s.353 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nandurbar, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr RI; 3 mo SI; fine Rs.1,000. Both accused were acquitted of the PC Act bribery charge but convicted under IPC ss. 353, 323 and 506 in the same trial.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/Qc8vIStQY6IVnL4PJdT4vgJifhbcfgErf18n4Qsp.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-112](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-112)

## GR No. 29/2016 (t2-03-113)

**Record:** t2-03-113
**Title:** GR No. 29/2016
**Court:** Special Sessions Court, Court 46, Mumbai (Judge S.E. Bangar) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** GR No. 29/2016
**Conviction:** 4 June 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Inspector, Maharashtra Police (Mumbai district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr imprisonment; 4 yr imprisonment

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2025 (Sr. No. 12) records that \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Inspector), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Mumbai district, was convicted on 4 June 2025 in GR No. 29/2016 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Mumbai, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr imprisonment; 4 yr imprisonment.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/Qc8vIStQY6IVnL4PJdT4vgJifhbcfgErf18n4Qsp.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-113](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-113)

## ACB CR No. 658/Satara/2014 (t2-03-114)

**Record:** t2-03-114
**Title:** ACB CR No. 658/Satara/2014
**Court:** Additional Sessions Court, Satara (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 658/Satara/2014
**Conviction:** 5 August 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Satara, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector, Karad Shahar Police Station Dist.satara Sadhya Sevanivri
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 yr RI; 2 yr RI; 3 mo; 6 mo; fine Rs.5000/Rs.10,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2025 (Sr. No. 16) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Sub-Inspector), posted at Karad Shahar Police Station Dist.satara Sadhya Sevanivri, Satara district, was convicted on 5 August 2025 in ACB CR No. 658/Satara/2014 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Additional Sessions Court, Satara sentenced the accused to 1 yr RI; 2 yr RI; 3 mo; 6 mo; fine Rs.5000/Rs.10,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/Qc8vIStQY6IVnL4PJdT4vgJifhbcfgErf18n4Qsp.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-114](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-114)

## ACB CR No. 815/Pune/2016; GR No. 234/2016 (t2-03-115)

**Record:** t2-03-115
**Title:** ACB CR No. 815/Pune/2016; GR No. 234/2016
**Court:** Additional Sessions Court, Pune (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 815/Pune/2016; GR No. 234/2016
**Conviction:** 5 August 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pune, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Maharashtra Police (Pune district)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr RI; 2 yr RI; fine Rs.10,000/Rs.5,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2025 (Sr. No. 17) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), serving with the Maharashtra Police, Pune district, was convicted on 5 August 2025 in ACB CR No. 815/Pune/2016; GR No. 234/2016 under ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Additional Sessions Court, Pune sentenced the accused to 3 yr RI; 2 yr RI; fine Rs.10,000/Rs.5,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/Qc8vIStQY6IVnL4PJdT4vgJifhbcfgErf18n4Qsp.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-115](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-115)

## CBI v. Mumbai Police Police Sub-Inspector (then PSI) (t2-13-005)

**Record:** t2-13-005
**Title:** CBI v. Mumbai Police Police Sub-Inspector (then PSI)
**Court:** Special CBI Court, Mumbai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Mumbai Police Police Sub-Inspector (then PSI)
**Conviction:** 7 October 2025
**Incident date:** 2009-09-11 (2009)
**Place:** Mumbai, Maharashtra
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 330; IPC 342; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Sub-Inspector (then PSI), Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai Police; Head Constable (then HC), Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai Police
**Victims:** Mumbai man, age 22
**Sentence:** Imprisonment 7 years + fine Rs 1,00,000 each (per CBI PR; some press reports state Rs 62,000 each with Rs 1 lakh to the victim's mother)

The CBI Court, Mumbai convicted then-PSI \[name withheld\] and then-Head Constable of Ghatkopar police station for the September 2009 custodial death of a Mumbai man, sentencing each to 7 years' imprisonment with fine. The CBI registered the case in November 2009 on Bombay High Court and Supreme Court orders and chargesheeted three policemen in December 2010 (the third, Police Naik, died during trial). Press reports \[name withheld\] the court acquitted both of murder but convicted them of causing hurt to extract confession, wrongful confinement and conspiracy.

**Sources (6):** [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3655410-ex-policemen-jailed-for-custodial-death-acquitted-of-murder-charge); [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NzMxNQ==); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/amp/news-updates/ghatkopar-custodial-death-case-bombay-high-court-directs-framing-murder-charges-against-police-officers); [rbnewsmedia.com](https://rbnewsmedia.com/mumbai-cbi-court-sentenced-two-police-officers-to-seven-years-imprisonment-and-fine-in-the-ghatkopar-custodial-death-case/); [htsyndication.com](https://www.htsyndication.com/united-news-of-india/article/mumbai-cbi-court-convicts-2-former-police-officers-in-custodial-death-case,-awards-7-year-rigorous-imprisonment/93876054); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/bombay-high-court-custodial-torture-murder-police-custody-sanction-under-section-197-of-crpc-224935)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-005)

## ACB CR No. 325/Ubad/2016; GR No. 21/2016 (t2-03-116)

**Record:** t2-03-116
**Title:** ACB CR No. 325/Ubad/2016; GR No. 21/2016
**Court:** Special Judge (PC Act), Dharashiv (Osmanabad) (inferred) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 325/Ubad/2016; GR No. 21/2016
**Conviction:** 3 December 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dharashiv (Osmanabad) — not Aurangabad, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.12; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Police Inspector, Police Station, Aurangabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 03 yr imprisonment; 52 yr imprisonment; 03 yr RI; 02 mo; 02 mo SI

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2025 (Sr. No. 22) records that \[name withheld\] (\[name withheld\] Police Inspector), posted at Police Station, Aurangabad, Aurangabad district, was convicted on 3 December 2025 in ACB CR No. 325/Ubad/2016; GR No. 21/2016 under ss. 7, 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad, which sentenced the accused to 03 yr imprisonment; 52 yr imprisonment; 03 yr RI; 02 mo; 02 mo SI.

**Sources (3):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/Qc8vIStQY6IVnL4PJdT4vgJifhbcfgErf18n4Qsp.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics); [acbmaharashtra.gov.in](https://acbmaharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-116](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-116)

## State (ACB Chandrapur) v. Chandrapur Police Police Station Officer and others (t2w3-29-001)

**Record:** t2w3-29-001
**Title:** State (ACB Chandrapur) v. Chandrapur Police Police Station Officer and others
**Court:** Special Judge, Chandrapur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB Chandrapur) v. Chandrapur Police Police Station Officer and others
**Conviction:** 13 June 2017
**Incident date:** 2004-01-17 (2004)
**Place:** Chandrapur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Station Officer, Bhari Police Station, Chandrapur district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)); concurrent; set-off u/s 428 CrPC

Per the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) judgment of 22-12-2025, Sopan Kamble, then Police Station Officer at Bhari Police Station, demanded Rs.500 from complainant \[name withheld\] on 12-01-2004 to take prompt action on his report and accepted the tainted Rs.500 (5xRs.100 notes) near a shop in Mokashiguda on 17-01-2004 in an ACB Chandrapur trap. The Special Judge, Chandrapur convicted him on 13-06-2017 in Special (ACB) Case No.1/2005, and the High Court dismissed his appeal, upholding conviction and sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36419905/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-29-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-29-001)

## ACB CR No. 206/Aubad/2020; GR No. 124/2020 (t2-03-117)

**Record:** t2-03-117
**Title:** ACB CR No. 206/Aubad/2020; GR No. 124/2020
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 206/Aubad/2020; GR No. 124/2020
**Conviction:** 6 March 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Ne. Police Station, Aurangabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 04 yr RI; 06 mo RI; fine Rs.50,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2026 (Sr. No. 6) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Ne. Police Station, Aurangabad, Aurangabad district, was convicted on 6 March 2026 in ACB CR No. 206/Aubad/2020; GR No. 124/2020 under s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Aurangabad, which sentenced the accused to 04 yr RI; 06 mo RI; fine Rs.50,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/v0eJPUO4kUQmjS9BH4BwZ6L1YGNGSNFrLxJl9XWa.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-117](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-117)

## ACB CR No. 270/Latur/2016; GR No. 3015/2016 (t2-03-118)

**Record:** t2-03-118
**Title:** ACB CR No. 270/Latur/2016; GR No. 3015/2016
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Latur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB CR No. 270/Latur/2016; GR No. 3015/2016
**Conviction:** 23 March 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Latur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Ne.Police Station, Latur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 yr imprisonment; 3 yr SI; 6 mo

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2026 (Sr. No. 10) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Ne.Police Station, Latur, Latur district, was convicted on 23 March 2026 in ACB CR No. 270/Latur/2016; GR No. 3015/2016 under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Latur, which sentenced the accused to 2 yr imprisonment; 3 yr SI; 6 mo.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/v0eJPUO4kUQmjS9BH4BwZ6L1YGNGSNFrLxJl9XWa.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-118](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-118)

## ACB trap case (ref. as in list) (t2-03-119)

**Record:** t2-03-119
**Title:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Court:** Special Court (PC Act), Nashik (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap case (ref. as in list)
**Conviction:** 11 September 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nashik, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Nashik Taluka Police Station Antargat Giran
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 yr imprisonment; 4 yr imprisonment; 3 mo; 4 mo; fine Rs.5,000

Maharashtra ACB's official 'Details of convictions in ACB cases' list for 2026 (Sr. No. 19) records that \[name withheld\] (Police Head Constable), posted at Nashik Taluka Police Station Antargat Giran, Nashik district, was convicted on 11 September 2026 in ACB trap case (ref. as in list) under ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The list does not name the deciding court; the case was tried by the Special Court (PC Act), Nashik, which sentenced the accused to 3 yr imprisonment; 4 yr imprisonment; 3 mo; 4 mo; fine Rs.5,000.

**Sources (2):** [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/storage/statistic/3zsf4GFM62QhyNtoafdBddBAKa9ZtksdsVckAChH.pdf); [acb.maharashtra.gov.in](https://acb.maharashtra.gov.in/statistics)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-03-119](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-03-119)

## CBI case: four CRPF personnel sentenced to life (killing of nine civilians; CBI PR dated 25.03.2008) (t2w3-23-003)

**Record:** t2w3-23-003
**Title:** CBI case: four CRPF personnel sentenced to life (killing of nine civilians; CBI PR dated 25.03.2008)
**Court:** Not stated in index entry (CBI case) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI case: four CRPF personnel sentenced to life (killing of nine civilians; CBI PR dated 25.03.2008)
**Conviction:** 17 March 2008
**Incident date:** 1995-01-07 (1995)
**Place:** Imphal West, Manipur
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302 r/w IPC 34; IPC 307 r/w IPC 34; IPC 326 r/w IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Personnel, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF); Personnel, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF); Personnel, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF); Personnel, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Life sentence

The official CBI press-release index (archived) lists a release dated 25.03.2008 titled 'Four C.R.P.F. personnel given life sentence for killing nine civilians'. The index entry does not name the personnel, the convicting court, the place of the incident, the case number, or the sections. The linked full press-release page was not captured by the web archive and no corroborating report could be verified in-session.

**Sources (3):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20080911085950id_/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pressrelease.php); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102079899/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/428879/razak-md-and-others-appellant-hash-central-bureau-of-investigation-cbi-respondent/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-23-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-23-003)

## State vs Manipur Police Police Driver (t2w2-11-016)

**Record:** t2w2-11-016
**Title:** State vs Manipur Police Police Driver
**Court:** Sessions Court, Manipur (trial court not named in appellate judgment) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Manipur Police Police Driver
**Conviction:** 30 April 2019
**Incident date:** 2012-10-20 (2012)
**Place:** Unknown (Manipur; appeal before Manipur HC at Imphal), Manipur
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.376(2)(g); IPC s.120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Driver, Manipur Police
**Victims:** Unknown girl, age 16
**Sentence:** Trial court: 15 years RI plus Rs 25,000 fine under s.376(2)(g) and 10 years RI plus Rs 10,000 fine under s.120B, concurrent; SC upheld conviction but reduced each term to 8 years

The Manipur Sessions trial court convicted police driver \[name a Unknown girl\] and a co-accused under IPC sections 376(2)(g) and 120B for the gang rape of a \[name a Unknown girl\] on 20 October 2012, sentencing each to 15 years RI (Rs.25,000 fine) and 10 years RI (Rs.10,000 fine), concurrent. The Manipur High Court affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court on 30 April 2019 partly allowed the appeals, upholding the conviction but reducing each sentence to 8 years.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109955999/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-11-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-11-016)

## State v \[name withheld\], Sessions Case No. 15/2007 (t2w4-19-003)

**Record:** t2w4-19-003
**Title:** State v \[name withheld\], Sessions Case No. 15/2007
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Shillong (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v \[name withheld\], Sessions Case No. 15/2007
**Conviction:** 23 February 2010
**Incident date:** 2006-09-15 (2006)
**Place:** East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 376
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Meghalaya Police
**Victims:** East Khasi Hills woman
**Sentence:** 10 years RI + fine Rs.10,000

The Sessions Judge, Shillong (SC No. 15/2007) convicted Meghalaya Police Sub-Inspector. \[name withheld\] on 23.02.2010 for the rape of an adult woman at gunpoint at the Natraj Hotel, Shillong on 15.09.2006, sentencing him under s.376 IPC to 10 years RI plus Rs.10,000 fine. The High Court of Meghalaya dismissed his appeal (Crl.A. 3/2010) on 09.07.2014, upholding the conviction and sentence.

**Sources (2):** [cmtb2b.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com](https://cmtb2b.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/dev/order_docs/meghalaya_highcourt/Crl-A--3-2010_09-07-2014.pdf); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/86670/john-r-marak-appellant-hash-the-state-of-meghalaya-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-19-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-19-003)

## Special (POCSO) Case No. 10 of 2014 — State vs \[name South West Garo Hills Girl\] (chargesheet No. 12/2013 dated 06/11/2013) (t2-12-005)

**Record:** t2-12-005
**Title:** Special (POCSO) Case No. 10 of 2014 — State vs \[name South West Garo Hills Girl\] (chargesheet No. 12/2013 dated 06/11/2013)
**Court:** Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Special (POCSO) Case No. 10 of 2014 — State vs \[name South West Garo Hills Girl\] (chargesheet No. 12/2013 dated 06/11/2013)
**Conviction:** 24 March 2022
**Incident date:** 2013-03-13 (2013)
**Place:** South West Garo Hills, Meghalaya
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge (then OC, Ampati Police Station; later dismissed/put off duty), Ampati Police Station, South West Garo Hills, Meghalaya Police
**Victims:** South West Garo Hills girl, age 13; South West Garo Hills girl, age 17
**Sentence:** Sentence pronounced 28/03/2022; quantum not stated in available reports or appellate judgment (HC: 'the appropriate punishment has been awarded'); conviction and sentence upheld by Meghalaya HC on 22/03/2023

The Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 10 of 2014, convicted then-Ampati OC for molesting and raping two minor sisters (aged 13 and 17), holding him guilty under the POCSO Act, 2012 and the IPC; judgment was delivered 24 March 2022 and sentence pronounced 28 March 2022. The girls had been detained at Ampati Police Station on 13 March 2013 and assaulted in the OC's chamber, and the elder was raped again at home on 31 March 2013. The Meghalaya High Court (Crl.A.No.12/2022, decided 22/03/2023) upheld the conviction and sentence, rejecting the defence that the survivors' alleged 'loose character' diminished the policeman's culpability.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134012635/); [aljazeera.co.in](https://aljazeera.co.in/politics/court-convicts-police-officer-for-raping-two-minor-sisters-at-police-station/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/meghalaya-high-court-cop-rape-minors-loose-character-survivors-porstitution-conviction-upheld-224657)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-12-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-12-005)

## State v. Cuttack Police Inspector (former) (t2-02-014)

**Record:** t2-02-014
**Title:** State v. Cuttack Police Inspector (former)
**Court:** Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Cuttack Police Inspector (former)
**Conviction:** 29 August 1988
**Incident date:** 1985-05-04 (1985)
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II; IPC 324; IPC 323; IPC 471; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector (former), Purighat Police Station, Cuttack; Senior Sub-Inspector (former), Purighat Police Station, Cuttack
**Victims:** Cuttack man
**Sentence:** Trial: 5 years and 8 years RI respectively (s.304-II) + up to 3 years RI (FIR fraud, wrongful confinement, hurt). On appeal (Orissa HC, 9 Nov 2020): 1 year SI (s.324/34) + 3 months SI (s.471/34) + 1 month SI (s.323/34), concurrent; Rs.3,00,000 compensation to legal heirs

The Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-ACJM (Special), Cuttack convicted Inspector and Senior Sub-Inspector for the 1985 custodial death following illegal confinement at Purighat police station, sentencing them to 5 and 8 years rigorous imprisonment for culpable homicide plus terms for FIR fraud, wrongful confinement and hurt. On appeal after 32 years, the Orissa High Court set aside the section 304-II conviction but held both guilty of voluntarily causing hurt and forgery-related offences, directing them to surrender and serve one-year concurrent simple-imprisonment terms. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the two officers in February 2021.

**Sources (8):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/custodial-violence-orissa-hc-directs-septuagenarian-ex-cops-to-serve-imprisonment-in-35-year-old-custodial-death-case-165741); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162192708/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/165413021/?formInput=ipc%2034); [sabrangindia.in](https://sabrangindia.in/custodial-death-case-orissa-hc-imposes-sentence-ex-cops/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/custodial-violence-abhorrent-unacceptable-crime-against-humanity-supreme-court); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6345f56ed5f9b52b6e9eb93b); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/custodial-violence-orissa-hc-directs-septuagenarian-ex-cops-to-serve-imprisonment-in-35-year-old-custodial-death-case-165741); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-384451.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-02-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-02-014)

## Bhubaneswar Vigilance PS Case No.31 dated 12.08.2013 (t2-02-011)

**Record:** t2-02-011
**Title:** Bhubaneswar Vigilance PS Case No.31 dated 12.08.2013
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Bhubaneswar Vigilance PS Case No.31 dated 12.08.2013
**Conviction:** 10 April 2023
**Incident date:** 2013-01-01 (2013)
**Place:** Khordha, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Khurdha PS (later Banapur PS, Khordha)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine (s.7 PC Act); 3 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine (s.13 PC Act); concurrent

The Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted ASI for demanding and accepting Rs.10,000 illegal gratification to cause arrest of accused persons in a Khurdha PS case. The court imposed concurrent sentences of 3 years rigorous imprisonment under section 13 and 2 years under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Odisha Vigilance said it would move for his dismissal from service. Conviction date is the report date (10 April 2023).

**Sources (5):** [yadunewsnation.in](https://yadunewsnation.in/nation/26076/); [indianewsdiary.com](https://indianewsdiary.com/vigilance-special-judge-bhubaneswar-convicted-asi-laxmidhar-panda-in-a-trap-case/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197467693/ (HC appeal, [name withheld] v. [name withheld] of Odisha (Vig.), 8 May 2023)); [neutralodishanews.live](https://neutralodishanews.live/corruption-as-per-state-vigilance/); [odishapostepaper.com](https://odishapostepaper.com/uploads/epaper/2023-04/643463e7b3a27.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-02-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-02-011)

## Balasore Vigilance trap case of 01.12.2014 (IIC Baria PS bribery) (t2w3-04-001)

**Record:** t2w3-04-001
**Title:** Balasore Vigilance trap case of 01.12.2014 (IIC Baria PS bribery)
**Court:** Special Vigilance Court, Keonjhar (Judge Rashmita Dalei) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Balasore Vigilance trap case of 01.12.2014 (IIC Baria PS bribery)
**Conviction:** 29 September 2023
**Incident date:** 2014-12-01 (2014)
**Place:** Keonjhar, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (Retired; former IIC, Baria Police Station), Baria Police Station (retired from Nandipada Police Station, Keonjhar); native of Balipadar, Bhanjanagar, Ganjam
**Victims:** Keonjhar man
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment and fine Rs.3,000 (in default further 2 months imprisonment)

The Special Vigilance Court, Keonjhar (Judge Rashmita Dalei) convicted retired Sub-Inspector, former IIC of Baria police station, for demanding and accepting bribes totalling Rs.11,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] to dilute a dowry-torture case against him; Swain was trapped accepting Rs.6,000 on the police station premises on 1 December 2014. The court sentenced him to 4 years rigorous imprisonment with a Rs.3,000 fine after examining 15 witnesses and the Vigilance probe report.

**Sources (2):** [orissapost.com](https://www.orissapost.com/ex-cop-gets-4-yr-term-for-graft/); [orissahighcourt.nic.in](https://www.orissahighcourt.nic.in/uploads/cases_filed/1696338483.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-04-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-04-001)

## Vigilance Trap Case (PC Act) (T2LC-03-011)

**Record:** T2LC-03-011
**Title:** Vigilance Trap Case (PC Act)
**Court:** Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance Trap Case (PC Act)
**Conviction:** 27 February 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated (2011)
**Place:** Sambalpur, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** SI (Traffic, Retd), Jajpur district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment + fine

Former Traffic SI (retired) \[name withheld\]/\[name withheld\] convicted in bribery case; pension stoppage recommended.

**Sources (2):** [sambadenglish.com](https://sambadenglish.com/latest-news/odisha-former-traffic-sub-inspector-convicted-in-bribery-case-sentenced-to-two-years-ri-11161605); [orissahighcourt.nic.in](https://www.orissahighcourt.nic.in/uploads/cases_filed/1774265549.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-03-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-03-011)

## Vigilance bribery case (Rs.5,000 for release of seized auto-rickshaw) (t2-02-006)

**Record:** t2-02-006
**Title:** Vigilance bribery case (Rs.5,000 for release of seized auto-rickshaw)
**Court:** Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance bribery case (Rs.5,000 for release of seized auto-rickshaw)
**Conviction:** 27 February 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sambalpur, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Traffic Sub-Inspector (Retired), Traffic Police, Sambalpur
**Victims:** Sambalpur resident
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine

The Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur convicted retired Traffic Sub-Inspector for demanding and accepting a Rs.5,000 bribe from an auto-rickshaw driver to release a seized vehicle and refrain from legal action. The court sentenced him to 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine on 27 February 2026. Odisha Vigilance said it would move for stoppage of his pension.

**Sources (4):** [sambadenglish.com](https://sambadenglish.com/latest-news/odisha-former-traffic-sub-inspector-convicted-in-bribery-case-sentenced-to-two-years-ri-11161605); [ommcomnews.com](https://ommcomnews.com/odisha-news/former-traffic-inspector-jailed-for-two-years-for-taking-bribe-in-sambalpur/); [pragativadi.com](https://pragativadi.com/ex-traffic-cop-watershed-officer-jailed-after-vigilance-secures-conviction-in-bribery-cases/); [orissahighcourt.nic.in](https://www.orissahighcourt.nic.in/uploads/cases_filed/1774265549.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-02-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-02-006)

## Vigilance Trap Case (PC Act) (T2LC-03-007)

**Record:** T2LC-03-007
**Title:** Vigilance Trap Case (PC Act)
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Anugul (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance Trap Case (PC Act)
**Conviction:** 3 July 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Angul, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** ASI, Industrial Police Station, Nisha, Anugul (later SDPO Office Palalahada, Anugul)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment + fine

ASI convicted for demanding and accepting Rs 15,000 bribe to release a seized mobile phone.

**Sources (3):** [pragativadi.com](https://pragativadi.com/corrupt-ex-asi-in-anugola-gets-4-year-jail-after-conviction-in-bribery-case/); [inpr.odisha.gov.in](https://inpr.odisha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2026-07/03.07.2026%20Conviction%20in%20Trap%20case_0.pdf); [ommcomnews.com](https://ommcomnews.com/odisha-news/ex-asi-of-police-sentenced-to-4-yrs-ri-in-bribery-case-in-anugola/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-03-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-03-007)

## State v. Puducherry Police Puducherry Police (rank not stated) & Anr (Puducherry Man @ Puducherry Man custodial death, 1993); SC No. 11/1995 (t2w2-14-011)

**Record:** t2w2-14-011
**Title:** State v. Puducherry Police Puducherry Police (rank not stated) & Anr (Puducherry Man @ Puducherry Man custodial death, 1993); SC No. 11/1995
**Court:** Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry (SC No. 11/1995) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Puducherry Police Puducherry Police (rank not stated) & Anr (Puducherry Man @ Puducherry Man custodial death, 1993); SC No. 11/1995
**Conviction:** 24 June 2002
**Incident date:** 1993-12-29 (1993)
**Place:** Puducherry, Puducherry
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II (A-2, A-3, A-4; affirmed by SC); IPC 201 Part II r/w 34 (A-7, A-8; set aside by SC 17.09.2025); A-6 tea-shop owner (civilian, not police; conviction set aside by SC); IPC 201 Part II (A-11 doctor; conviction kept, sentence modified to Rs 1,00,000 fine)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Puducherry Police (rank not stated), Odiansalai Police Station, Pondicherry; Puducherry Police (rank not stated), Odiansalai Police Station, Pondicherry; Puducherry Police (rank not stated), Odiansalai Police Station, Pondicherry; Puducherry Police (rank not stated), Odiansalai Police Station, Pondicherry; Puducherry Police (rank not stated), Odiansalai Police Station, Pondicherry; Puducherry Police (rank not stated), Odiansalai Police Station, Pondicherry
**Victims:** Puducherry man
**Sentence:** 3 policemen: 7 years RI each; 3 policemen: 1 year RI each (doctor A-11: 1 year RI, later modified by Supreme Court to Rs 1,00,000 fine)

The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry (SC No. 11/1995, Cr. No. 333/1993 Odiansalai PS) on 24 June 2002 convicted six Puducherry policemen and a government doctor for the custodial beating to death of a Puducherry man @ a Puducherry man, brought to Odiansalai police station for interrogation on 29 December 1993, manhandled and brutally injured by the police accused and declared dead at hospital; the prosecution case turned on discrepancies between the first post-mortem (shock due to haemorrhage from cirrhotic varices, only two injuries noted) and a second autopsy (shock from multiple blunt-instrument injuries). Three policemen received seven years RI each and three policemen plus the doctor one year RI each; one policeman died during trial and three were acquitted. The Madras High Court (Justice M.V. Muralidaran, common judgment 29 October 2018 in Crl.A. No. 1051 of 2002 batch) upheld the convictions, and the Supreme Court (Justice Nagarathna, Crl.A. No. 17 of 2019, 17 September 2025) kept the doctor's conviction while modifying his sentence to a fine. Officer names, ranks and exact sections need the HC judgment or trial records.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186698677/); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/hc-upholds-conviction-of-cops-doctor-in-custodial-death-case-461488.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-14-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-14-011)

## Criminal Appeal No.756-SB of 2003 (conviction by Special Judge, Patiala, 22.03.2003; FIR on application dated 30.07.1997 of \[name withheld\]) (t2w3-15-002)

**Record:** t2w3-15-002
**Title:** Criminal Appeal No.756-SB of 2003 (conviction by Special Judge, Patiala, 22.03.2003; FIR on application dated 30.07.1997 of \[name withheld\])
**Court:** Special Judge, Patiala (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Criminal Appeal No.756-SB of 2003 (conviction by Special Judge, Patiala, 22.03.2003; FIR on application dated 30.07.1997 of \[name withheld\])
**Conviction:** 22 March 2003
**Incident date:** 1996-10-01 (1996)
**Place:** Patiala, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(i); IPC 420
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Punjab Police (posted with Inspector General of Police, Zone-I, Patiala)
**Victims:** Patiala man
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 2 years on each count (concurrent)

The Special Judge, Patiala, on 22.03.2003 convicted Punjab Police Constable for taking Rs 1,55,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] on the false promise of recruiting his son as ASI on sports quota, returning only Rs 80,000 and threatening the complainant when pressed for the balance. He was sentenced to 2 years' RI with fine under Section 13(1)(d)(i) PC Act and Section 420 IPC (concurrent). The Punjab and Haryana High Court (Justice L.N. Mittal, 08.07.2011) held the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, affirmed the conviction, refused reduction of sentence, and dismissed the appeal, ordering surrender to undergo the remaining term.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124249963/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-15-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-15-002)

## CRA No.S-285-SB of 2004 (FIR registered at PS Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar on complaint of Hoshiarpur Man) (t2w3-15-001)

**Record:** t2w3-15-001
**Title:** CRA No.S-285-SB of 2004 (FIR registered at PS Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar on complaint of Hoshiarpur Man)
**Court:** Special Judge, Hoshiarpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** CRA No.S-285-SB of 2004 (FIR registered at PS Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar on complaint of Hoshiarpur Man)
**Conviction:** 17 January 2004
**Incident date:** 2002-05-02 (2002)
**Place:** Hoshiarpur, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Mahilpur, Hoshiarpur, Punjab Police (Investigating Officer of FIR No.23/15.02.2002)
**Victims:** Hoshiarpur man
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 1 year

The Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, on 17.01.2004 convicted ASI of PS Mahilpur for demanding and accepting Rs 3,000 bribe from complainant \[name withheld\] for joining him and his son in investigation and accepting bail bonds in FIR No.23/2002, in a Vigilance Bureau Jalandhar trap laid at his official residence on 02.05.2002 with phenolphthalein-treated notes. He was sentenced to 1 year's RI with Rs 5,000 fine under Section 7 r/w 13(2) PC Act. The Punjab and Haryana High Court (\[name withheld\], 08.04.2015) found no infirmity, maintained the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal and ordered surrender to undergo the remaining sentence.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30863919/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/185142/balbir-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-punjab-respondent-42/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-15-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-15-001)

## CBI v. Punjab Police Deputy Superintendent of Police and others (t2-07-008)

**Record:** t2-07-008
**Title:** CBI v. Punjab Police Deputy Superintendent of Police and others
**Court:** Additional District / Sessions Judge, Patiala (Judge Bhupinder Singh; CBI case) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Punjab Police Deputy Superintendent of Police and others
**Conviction:** 18 November 2005
**Incident date:** 1995-09-06 (1995)
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302 (murder); IPC 364 (abduction with intent to murder - source's words; drop /365 hedge); IPC 201 (destruction of evidence); IPC 120-B (criminal conspiracy)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punjab Police; not stated (Punjab Police official), Punjab Police; not stated (Punjab Police official), Punjab Police; not stated (Punjab Police official), Punjab Police; not stated (Punjab Police official), Punjab Police; not stated (Punjab Police official), Punjab Police
**Victims:** Amritsar man
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\]: life imprisonment for murder plus 7 years (abduction), 2 years (destruction of evidence), 5 years (conspiracy); \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\]: 7 years (abduction) plus 5 years (conspiracy)

Additional District Judge \[name withheld\], Patiala, on 18 November 2005 convicted six Punjab Police officials in the CBI-prosecuted abduction and murder of human rights activist \[name withheld\], who was picked up outside his Amritsar home on 6 September 1995, tortured in illegal custody and killed in late October 1995 with his body dumped in the Harike canal. DSP and \[name withheld\] received life terms for murder with additional terms for abduction, destruction of evidence and conspiracy; four others received seven-year terms for abduction and five for conspiracy. Two senior accused (SSP, DSP) died during trial. Appeal posture not verified from opened sources (reported upheld by P&H HC 2007 and SC 2011 — for T2-20 to confirm).

**Sources (5):** [archive.blogs.harvard.edu](https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/jaskaran/2005/11/18/punjab-cops-convicted-of-1995-murder-of-activist-khalra-kps-gill-re/); [en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaswant_Singh_Khalra); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/342168/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/342168/?formInput=ipc+201++++++doctypes%3A+supremecourt+tag%3A+murder%2Ccommon-intention%2Ckidnapping-abducting-for-murder); [bhaskarenglish.in](https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/originals/news/diljit-dosanjh-satluj-controversy-who-is-jaswant-singh-khalra-zee5-ott-movie-ban-138384394.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-07-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-07-008)

## Criminal Appeal No.2434-SB of 2007 (conviction by Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, 27.11.2007; complaint of Fatehgarh Sahib Man re arms-licence verification) (t2w3-15-003)

**Record:** t2w3-15-003
**Title:** Criminal Appeal No.2434-SB of 2007 (conviction by Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, 27.11.2007; complaint of Fatehgarh Sahib Man re arms-licence verification)
**Court:** Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Criminal Appeal No.2434-SB of 2007 (conviction by Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, 27.11.2007; complaint of Fatehgarh Sahib Man re arms-licence verification)
**Conviction:** 27 November 2007
**Incident date:** 2005-05-16 (2005)
**Place:** Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (In-charge, Police Post Peer Jain), Punjab Police (under Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib)
**Victims:** Fatehgarh Sahib man
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 2 years under each section (concurrent)

The Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, on 27.11.2007 convicted ASI, In-charge of Police Post Peer Jain, for demanding Rs 3,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] to clear the character-verification papers for his double-barrelled-gun licence application, in a trap laid after the complainant reported the demand. He was sentenced to 2 years' RI with fine under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act (concurrent). The Punjab and Haryana High Court (\[name withheld\], 04.09.2009) held the appeal devoid of merit, dismissed it, and left the conviction and sentence intact.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1808062/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-15-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-15-003)

## CBI case: two Punjab Police officials sentenced (abduction; CBI PR dated 17.07.2008) (t2w3-23-002)

**Record:** t2w3-23-002
**Title:** CBI case: two Punjab Police officials sentenced (abduction; CBI PR dated 17.07.2008)
**Court:** Not stated in index entry (CBI case) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI case: two Punjab Police officials sentenced (abduction; CBI PR dated 17.07.2008)
**Conviction:** 17 July 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Unknown, Punjab
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Official, Punjab Police; Police Official, Punjab Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years jail term

The official CBI press-release index (archived) lists a release dated 17.07.2008 titled 'Three years jail term for two Punjab Police Officials for abducting a person'. The index entry does not name the officers, the convicting court, the case number, or the sections. The linked full press-release page was not captured by the web archive and no corroborating report could be verified in-session.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20080724215913id_/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pressrelease.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-23-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-23-002)

## State v. Punjab Police Head Constable (t2w4-11-025)

**Record:** t2w4-11-025
**Title:** State v. Punjab Police Head Constable
**Court:** Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridkot (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Punjab Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 29 March 2010
**Incident date:** 2002-09-22 (2002)
**Place:** Faridkot, Punjab
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 420
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Punjab Police
**Victims:** Faridkot resident
**Sentence:** 2 years imprisonment

Per the Supreme Court order, HC of Punjab Police was convicted on 29-03-2010 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridkot under s.420 IPC (with his wife \[name withheld\], a private co-accused — no row for her) for extracting Rs 70,000 from informant \[name withheld\] on the false promise of arranging a police job for him (deal Rs 1,40,000; Rs 50,000 paid 22-09-2002 at his quarter in his wife's presence who counted it, balance Rs 20,000 collected later; FIR No.22 dated 02-06-2004), and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with Rs 2,000 fine. Appeal (Crl.A. No.75 of 14-10-2005) dismissed 30-09-2011 by the ASJ Faridkot; revision (CRR No.2576 of 2011) rejected 28-11-2011 by the High Court; the Supreme Court on 26-11-2012 dismissed the husband's SLP (notice only on the wife's sentence); appeal_status upheld.

**Sources (3):** [legalauthority.in](https://www.legalauthority.in/amp/judgement/jasvir-kaur-vs-state-of-punjab-6851); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af19e4b01497114159ae); [sci.gov.in](https://www.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/40019.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-11-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-11-025)

## CBI v. Punjab Police SP (SSP Amritsar Rural at verdict) (t2w2-13-006)

**Record:** t2w2-13-006
**Title:** CBI v. Punjab Police SP (SSP Amritsar Rural at verdict)
**Court:** Special CBI Court, Patiala (Spl Judge Hemant Gupta) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Punjab Police SP (SSP Amritsar Rural at verdict)
**Conviction:** 11 March 2013
**Incident date:** 1993-05-12 (1993)
**Place:** Sangrur, Punjab
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 342; IPC 343; IPC 346; IPC 364; IPC 365; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** SP (SSP Amritsar Rural at verdict), Punjab Police, Sangrur; Inspector (retd DSP), Punjab Police, Bhawanigarh; Head Constable (SI at verdict), Punjab Police, Sangrur; Constable (HC at verdict), Punjab Police, Sangrur; SHO (DSP at verdict), Punjab Police, Malerkotla; Constable (retired), Punjab Police
**Victims:** Sangrur man, age 29; Sangrur man
**Sentence:** Virk, \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]: 10 yr RI (ss.120B/342/343/346/364); \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]: 3 yr RI (ss.34/342/343/346/365); all sent to Central Jail Patiala

The Special CBI Court at Patiala (Spl Judge Hemant Gupta) on 11 March 2013 sentenced then-SP (Detective) \[name withheld\] and three others to 10 years' RI for criminal conspiracy, wrongful confinement and kidnapping in order to murder footballer a Sangrur man (29), picked up with his father \[name withheld\] on 12-13 May 1993, tortured in illegal custody, re-abducted from Kolkata on 6 June 1993 and never seen again. Then-SHO \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] \[name withheld\] and retired constable got three years' RI for assisting; the Punjab & Haryana High Court later declined to suspend Virk's sentence.

**Sources (3):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzY0NQ==); [sikhsiyasatnews.net](https://sikhsiyasatnews.net/high-court-declines-to-suspend-sentence-of-ssp-preetpal-virk-in-1993-abduction-case/); [sikhsiyasatnews.net](https://sikhsiyasatnews.net/ssp-preetpal-singh-virk-3-others-get-10-yrs-jail-in-a-1993-case-for-abduction-and-custodial-torture/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-13-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-13-006)

## CBI v. Punjab Police SHO (then SHO) and others (t2-13-024)

**Record:** t2-13-024
**Title:** CBI v. Punjab Police SHO (then SHO) and others
**Court:** Special Judge-I, CBI Cases, Mohali (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Punjab Police SHO (then SHO) and others
**Conviction:** 27 February 2019
**Incident date:** 1996-01-01 (1996)
**Place:** Rupnagar, Punjab
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307; Arms Act 25/54/59
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO (then SHO), PS Sadar, Ropar, Punjab Police; ASI (then ASI), Punjab Police; ASI (then ASI), Punjab Police
**Victims:** Rupnagar man; Rupnagar man
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\]: life imprisonment + fine Rs 5,00,000 (Rs 2,00,000 each to the two victim families); two ASIs: probation one year + Rs 20,000 litigation expenses each

The Special Judge-I, CBI Mohali sentenced SHO to life for the staged encounter killing of \[name withheld\] and a Rupnagar man, falsely shown as arrested and then killed near village Bhadal with a cover story of cross-firing during an arms recovery. Two ASIs were released on a year's probation. The CBI registered the case in 1997 on Punjab and Haryana High Court orders on the wife's petition. Incident circa 1996 per writ-petition year.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjI0OQ==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-024)

## VB June-2019 monthly round-up: 'Vigilance nabs 13 officials, 2 private persons in 12 bribery cases during June; Seven officials sentenced by special courts' (decided June 2019, released 8 July 2019) (t2w3-15-004)

**Record:** t2w3-15-004
**Title:** VB June-2019 monthly round-up: 'Vigilance nabs 13 officials, 2 private persons in 12 bribery cases during June; Seven officials sentenced by special courts' (decided June 2019, released 8 July 2019)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** VB June-2019 monthly round-up: 'Vigilance nabs 13 officials, 2 private persons in 12 bribery cases during June; Seven officials sentenced by special courts' (decided June 2019, released 8 July 2019)
**Conviction:** June 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mansa, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 (bribery; exact sections not stated in VB release)
**Officers (gated display forms):** ASI, posted at Mansa
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment (rigorous/simple not stated in release)

Per the Punjab Vigilance Bureau's official June-2019 monthly round-up (released 8 July 2019), special courts decided six bribery cases contested by the Bureau that month; ASI, posted at Mansa, was convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment with Rs 50,000 fine by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa. The release does not \[name withheld\] the FIR number, trap date, or PC Act sections. The same VB release was carried verbatim by Social Observer, corroborating the release text; no appeal record found (appeal_status none_known).

**Sources (3):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_8-7-2019_total_work.pdf); [socialobserver.in](https://socialobserver.in/latest-news/vigilance-nabs-13-officials-2-private-persons-in-12-bribery-cases/); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2021/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_8-7-2019_total_work.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-15-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-15-004)

## VB June-2019 monthly round-up: 'Vigilance nabs 13 officials, 2 private persons in 12 bribery cases during June; Seven officials sentenced by special courts' (decided June 2019, released 8 July 2019) (t2w3-15-005)

**Record:** t2w3-15-005
**Title:** VB June-2019 monthly round-up: 'Vigilance nabs 13 officials, 2 private persons in 12 bribery cases during June; Seven officials sentenced by special courts' (decided June 2019, released 8 July 2019)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** VB June-2019 monthly round-up: 'Vigilance nabs 13 officials, 2 private persons in 12 bribery cases during June; Seven officials sentenced by special courts' (decided June 2019, released 8 July 2019)
**Conviction:** June 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Patiala, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 (bribery; exact sections not stated in VB release)
**Officers (gated display forms):** ASI, posted at Patiala
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years imprisonment (rigorous/simple not stated in release)

Per the Punjab Vigilance Bureau's official June-2019 monthly round-up (released 8 July 2019), ASI, posted at Patiala, was convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment with Rs 20,000 fine by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in a bribery case contested by the Bureau and decided in June 2019. The release does not \[name withheld\] the FIR number, trap date, or PC Act sections. The same VB release was carried verbatim by Social Observer, corroborating the release text; no appeal record found (appeal_status none_known).

**Sources (3):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_8-7-2019_total_work.pdf); [socialobserver.in](https://socialobserver.in/latest-news/vigilance-nabs-13-officials-2-private-persons-in-12-bribery-cases/); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2021/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_8-7-2019_total_work.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-15-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-15-005)

## VB June-2019 monthly round-up: 'Vigilance nabs 13 officials, 2 private persons in 12 bribery cases during June; Seven officials sentenced by special courts' (decided June 2019, released 8 July 2019) (t2w3-15-006)

**Record:** t2w3-15-006
**Title:** VB June-2019 monthly round-up: 'Vigilance nabs 13 officials, 2 private persons in 12 bribery cases during June; Seven officials sentenced by special courts' (decided June 2019, released 8 July 2019)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** VB June-2019 monthly round-up: 'Vigilance nabs 13 officials, 2 private persons in 12 bribery cases during June; Seven officials sentenced by special courts' (decided June 2019, released 8 July 2019)
**Conviction:** June 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Barnala, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 (bribery; exact sections not stated in VB release)
**Officers (gated display forms):** ASI, posted at Barnala
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment (rigorous/simple not stated in release)

Per the Punjab Vigilance Bureau's official June-2019 monthly round-up (released 8 July 2019), ASI, posted at Barnala, was convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment with Rs 20,000 fine by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, in a bribery case contested by the Bureau and decided in June 2019. The release does not \[name withheld\] the FIR number, trap date, or PC Act sections. Not the same person-case as the \[name withheld\] co-accused in the CBI fireman-Paramjit-Singh fake-encounter matter (t2w2-09-018), nor the \[name withheld\] bribery matter (t2w2-09-019). No appeal record found (appeal_status none_known).

**Sources (3):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_8-7-2019_total_work.pdf); [socialobserver.in](https://socialobserver.in/latest-news/vigilance-nabs-13-officials-2-private-persons-in-12-bribery-cases/); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2021/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_8-7-2019_total_work.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-15-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-15-006)

## State (Vigilance Bureau) vs Punjab Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w2-09-015)

**Record:** t2w2-09-015
**Title:** State (Vigilance Bureau) vs Punjab Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Jalandhar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (Vigilance Bureau) vs Punjab Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** August 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jalandhar, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 (sections unstated in release)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Posted at Jalandhar (department inferred as Punjab Police from rank; VB release states 'ASI posted at Jalandhar')
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years imprisonment + Rs 10,000 fine

The Court of Special Judge, Jalandhar, in August 2019 convicted ASI, posted at Jalandhar, in a Punjab Vigilance Bureau bribery case and sentenced him to five years imprisonment with a Rs 10,000 fine, as disclosed by VB Chief Director-cum-ADGP B.K. Uppal in the Bureau's August 2019 round-up. The release states special courts decided two Bureau-contested bribery cases that month. The bribe amount, trap date and PC Act sections were not stated in the release.

**Sources (2):** [punjabpost.in](https://punjabpost.in/welcome/155706); [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_15-9-2019_VB.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-09-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-09-015)

## State (Vigilance Bureau) vs Punjab Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others (t2w2-09-016)

**Record:** t2w2-09-016
**Title:** State (Vigilance Bureau) vs Punjab Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Court:** Court of Special Judge, Moga (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (Vigilance Bureau) vs Punjab Police Assistant Sub-Inspector and others
**Conviction:** August 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Moga, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 (sections unstated in release)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Narcotic cell, Moga, Punjab Police; Head Constable, Narcotic cell, Moga, Punjab Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment + Rs 5,000 fine each

The Court of Special Judge, Moga, in August 2019 convicted ASI and Head Constable, both posted at the Narcotic cell Moga, in a Punjab Vigilance Bureau bribery case and sentenced each to four years imprisonment with a Rs 5,000 fine, as disclosed in the Bureau's August 2019 round-up. The bribe amount, trap date and PC Act sections were not stated in the release.

**Sources (2):** [punjabpost.in](https://punjabpost.in/welcome/155706); [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_15-9-2019_VB.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-09-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-09-016)

## CBI v. Punjab Police SHO (Inspector) (t2-13-002)

**Record:** t2-13-002
**Title:** CBI v. Punjab Police SHO (Inspector)
**Court:** CBI Court, Mohali, Punjab (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Punjab Police SHO (Inspector)
**Conviction:** 29 March 2023
**Incident date:** 1991-08-07 (1991)
**Place:** Tarn Taran, Punjab
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** SHO (Inspector), Punjab Police, PS Chabal, Tarn Taran; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Punjab Police, PS Chabal, Tarn Taran; Constable, Punjab Police, PS Chabal, Tarn Taran
**Victims:** Tarn Taran man
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 5 years + fine Rs 10,000 each

The CBI Court, Mohali convicted SHO, ASI and Constable of Punjab Police for the 1991 abduction and disappearance of \[name withheld\] from PS Chabal custody, sentencing each to 5 years' RI with Rs 10,000 fine. The CBI had registered the case in 2006 on the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order on the victim's wife's writ petition and chargesheeted the accused in 2007. Their co-accused, Head Constable, absconded and was convicted separately in 2026 (t2-13-001).

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/Nzg0Mw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-002)

## CBI v. Punjab Police SI/SHO (then SI/SHO) and others (t2-13-015)

**Record:** t2-13-015
**Title:** CBI v. Punjab Police SI/SHO (then SI/SHO) and others
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Mohali (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Punjab Police SI/SHO (then SI/SHO) and others
**Conviction:** 30 March 2024
**Incident date:** 1992-10-04 (1992)
**Place:** Tarn Taran, Punjab
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** SI/SHO (then SI/SHO), PS Jhabbal, Amritsar, Punjab Police
**Victims:** Tarn Taran man
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 10 years + fine Rs 2,00,000; compensation to family referred to DLSA

The Special Judge, CBI Cases Mohali sentenced then-SHO \[name withheld\] of PS Jhabbal to 10 years' RI with Rs 2 lakh fine for the extra-judicial killing of \[name withheld\], illegally detained on 04.10.1992 and cremated as an unclaimed body. The CBI acted on the Supreme Court's 1995 mass-cremation order and chargesheeted \[name withheld\] with DSP in 1999; the DSP died during trial. The court referred the victim's family to the District Legal Services Authority for compensation.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NjIyMw==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-015)

## CBI v. Punjab Police Station House Officer (former) and others (t2-07-005)

**Record:** t2-07-005
**Title:** CBI v. Punjab Police Station House Officer (former) and others
**Court:** Special CBI Court, Mohali (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Punjab Police Station House Officer (former) and others
**Conviction:** 7 June 2024
**Incident date:** 1993-07-22 (1993)
**Place:** Tarn Taran, Punjab
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.302 (\[name withheld\]); IPC s.364 (both); IPC s.201 (\[name withheld\]); IPC s.218 (\[name withheld\])
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer (former), Punjab Police, Tarn Taran; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran city at time of offence (retired as Deputy Inspector General), Punjab Police, Tarn Taran
**Victims:** Tarn Taran resident
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\]: life imprisonment; \[name withheld\]: seven years imprisonment for kidnapping

A Special CBI court in Mohali sentenced former SHO to life imprisonment and former DSP (retired DIG) \[name withheld\] to seven years jail for the staged-encounter killing of fruit-seller a Tarn Taran resident, as reported by PTI on 7 June 2024. The CBI, which took over the case in 1995 on Supreme Court orders, proved through 32 witnesses that Kumar was abducted from his home on 22 June 1993, held in illegal detention for a month, killed on 22 July 1993 and cremated by police without informing his family. \[name withheld\]'s seven-year term was specifically for kidnapping under IPC section 364. Note: one secondary report dates the verdict Friday 14 June 2024; PTI's 7 June 2024 date is used here.

**Sources (7):** [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/2975602-former-police-officers-sentenced-for-1993-fake-encounter-killing-in-punjab); [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NjM1Mw==); [face2news.com](https://face2news.com/news/92044-cbi-court-sentence-two-accused-among-than-dsp-tarn-taran-then-sho-to-life-imprisonment-fine-of-rs-375-lakh-/); [sikhsiyasatnews.net](https://sikhsiyasatnews.net/former-dig-dsp-get-jail-terms-in-31-years/); [bhaskarenglish.in](https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/originals/news/punjab-fake-encounters-father-31-years-fight-for-justice-134424243.html); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/india-news-tarn-taran-fake-encounter-former-dsp-sho-convicted-for-staged-killing-of-fruit-seller-31-years-ago-6018827.html); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/india-news-tarn-taran-fake-encounter-former-sho-sentenced-to-life-imprisonment-for-staged-killing-31-years-ago-6021745.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-07-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-07-005)

## CBI v. Punjab Police IGP (then IGP, IPS) (t2-13-012)

**Record:** t2-13-012
**Title:** CBI v. Punjab Police IGP (then IGP, IPS)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Punjab, Mohali (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Punjab Police IGP (then IGP, IPS)
**Conviction:** 20 December 2024
**Incident date:** 2014-08-26 (2014)
**Place:** Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** illegal detention false imprisonment
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** IGP (then IGP, IPS), Punjab Police
**Victims:** Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar resident
**Sentence:** Imprisonment 8 months + total fine Rs 39,000 (all six accused)

The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Mohali sentenced Punjab IPS officer (then IGP) and five others to 8 months' imprisonment for forcibly taking arrestee a Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar resident out of PS Phase-I Mohali's lawful custody late on 26.08.2014 and detaining and threatening him at a hospital to pressure withdrawal of complaints against \[name withheld\]. The CBI took over the FIR on High Court orders and chargesheeted six accused in December 2020. Only Cheema is police personnel; co-convicts are an IDES officer and four private persons.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NjcxOA==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-012)

## CBI v. Punjab Police Deputy Superintendent of Police at time of offence (retired as Senior Superintendent of Police) (t2-07-001)

**Record:** t2-07-001
**Title:** CBI v. Punjab Police Deputy Superintendent of Police at time of offence (retired as Senior Superintendent of Police)
**Court:** Special CBI Court, Mohali (Judge Baljinder Singh Sra) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Punjab Police Deputy Superintendent of Police at time of offence (retired as Senior Superintendent of Police)
**Conviction:** 4 August 2025
**Incident date:** 1993-07-12 (1993)
**Place:** Tarn Taran, Punjab
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police at time of offence (retired as Senior Superintendent of Police), Punjab Police, Tarn Taran; Assistant Sub-Inspector at time of offence (retired as Deputy Superintendent of Police), Punjab Police, Tarn Taran; Inspector, Punjab Police, Tarn Taran; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Punjab Police, Tarn Taran; Assistant Sub-Inspector, Punjab Police, Tarn Taran
**Victims:** Tarn Taran man; Tarn Taran man; Tarn Taran man; Tarn Taran man; Tarn Taran man; Tarn Taran man; Tarn Taran man
**Sentence:** Rigorous life imprisonment for all five, plus Rs 3.50 lakh fine each; sentenced 4 August 2025

The court of CBI Special Judge \[name withheld\], Mohali, on 1 August 2025 found five retired Punjab Police officers guilty of criminal conspiracy, murder and destruction of evidence for staging two fake encounters in Tarn Taran in July 1993 in which seven youths (three of them Special Police Officers) were abducted, tortured and killed. The CBI, which took over the case on a 1996 Supreme Court order, proved through post-mortem and forensic evidence that the encounters were fabricated and bodies cremated as unclaimed. On 4 August 2025 the court sentenced all five to rigorous life imprisonment with Rs 3.5 lakh fine each, calling their conduct morally bankrupt and profoundly inhumane.

**Sources (9):** [bhaskarenglish.in](https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/local/punjab/news/punjab-police-officers-sentenced-to-life-imprisonment-court-delivers-verdict-in-1993-fake-encounter-case-national-135600948.html); [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NzE3Mw==); [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NzE3OA==); [inshorts.com](https://inshorts.com/en/news/ex-ssp--dsp-get-life-term-in-fake-encounter-case-in-punjab-1754316596736); [bhaskarenglish.in](https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/amp/local/punjab/news/punjab-police-officers-sentenced-to-life-imprisonment-court-delivers-verdict-in-1993-fake-encounter-case-national-135600948.html); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3529120-justice-served-life-imprisonment-for-1993-fake-encounter-case-convicts); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3529120-justice-served-life-imprisonment-for-1993-fake-encounter-case-convicts?amp); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3530276-32-years-on-families-of-1993-tarn-taran-fake-encounter-victims-see-justice-as-5-ex-cops-jailed?amp); [indianewsstream.com](https://www.indianewsstream.com/5-retired-punjab-policemen-get-life-term-for-1993-fake-encounter-killings/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-07-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-07-001)

## CBI v. Punjab Police Head Constable (t2-13-001)

**Record:** t2-13-001
**Title:** CBI v. Punjab Police Head Constable
**Court:** CBI Court, Mohali, Punjab (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Punjab Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 4 July 2026
**Incident date:** 1991-08-07 (1991)
**Place:** Tarn Taran, Punjab
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** enforced disappearance
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Punjab Police, PS Chabal, Tarn Taran
**Victims:** Tarn Taran resident
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 5 years + fine Rs 10,000

The CBI Court, Mohali convicted and sentenced Punjab Police Head Constable to 5 years' RI with Rs 10,000 fine for the 1991 abduction of \[name withheld\], who was picked up on 7.8.1991, held at PS Chabal for about ten days and then disappeared after police denied his custody. The court matched the sentence earlier given to his three co-accused. \[name withheld\] had absconded during trial, was declared a proclaimed offender in 2010, and was arrested in November 2025 before being tried separately.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/Nzg0Mw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-001)

## State of Rajasthan vs Rajgarh Police Head Constable and others (t2w2-08-017)

**Record:** t2w2-08-017
**Title:** State of Rajasthan vs Rajgarh Police Head Constable and others
**Court:** Special Judge, Alwar (D.B. Crl. Appeal 769/1972; S.B. Crl. Appeal 535/1972) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State of Rajasthan vs Rajgarh Police Head Constable and others
**Conviction:** 5 August 1972
**Incident date:** 1965-06-28 (1965)
**Place:** Alwar, Rajasthan
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 409
**Officers (gated display forms):** Radhey Shyam (Head Constable)
**Victims:** Alwar resident
**Sentence:** 6 months RI + Rs.500 fine (3 months further RI in default)

Head Constable Radhey Shyam of Rajgarh (Alwar), who with SHO and Constable arrested Dana in June 1965 but kept his cycle, Rs.200 in currency notes and other articles off the arrest memo and misappropriated them, was convicted on 5 August 1972 by the Special Judge, Alwar under IPC s.409 and sentenced to 6 months' RI with Rs.500 fine; the co-accused were acquitted at trial. The Rajasthan High Court Division Bench (P.D. Kudal, J., 1980WLN17) on 11 January 1980 dismissed both Radhey Shyam's appeal and the \[name withheld\]'s appeals, upholding the conviction while declining to enhance the sentence given the 14-year lapse.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/239746/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-017)

## State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable, Incharge Out Post Sidhmukh (t2w3-34-008)

**Record:** t2w3-34-008
**Title:** State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable, Incharge Out Post Sidhmukh
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Churu (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable, Incharge Out Post Sidhmukh
**Conviction:** 29 April 1982
**Incident date:** 1977-05-05 (1977)
**Place:** Churu, Rajasthan
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 395 r/w IPC 109; IPC 353 r/w IPC 109; IPC 224; IPC 395
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Incharge Out Post Sidhmukh, Police Out Post Sidhmukh, Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan Police; Constable, Police Out Post Sidhmukh, Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Churu resident
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\]: 4.5 years RI (s.395/109) + 6 months RI (s.353/109) + 6 months RI (s.224); \[name withheld\]: 4.5 years RI (s.395)

Head Constable (Incharge, Out Post Sidhmukh) and Constable attacked an Anti-Corruption Department trap party at Out Post Sidhmukh on 05.05.1977, looted the Rs.1,000 trap money from an ACD head constable and forcibly rescued \[name withheld\] from ACD custody. The Sessions Judge, Churu convicted them on 29.04.1982 (dacoity, assault on public servants, escape from custody). The Rajasthan High Court dismissed their appeal on 03.07.1995 and maintained both convictions and sentences (co-accused \[name withheld\], Constable, had been acquitted by the trial court).

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1280281/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-34-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-34-008)

## State of Rajasthan vs Nagaur Police Head Constable (t2-06-005)

**Record:** t2-06-005
**Title:** State of Rajasthan vs Nagaur Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Jodhpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State of Rajasthan vs Nagaur Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 7 September 2000
**Incident date:** 1995-12-01 (1995)
**Place:** Nagaur, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Station Khinvsar, Nagaur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs 2,000 fine (s.7); 2 years RI + Rs 4,000 fine (s.13)

The Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Jodhpur convicted Head Constable of PS Khinvsar on 7 September 2000 for misusing his position to demand a bribe from complainant \[name withheld\] after refusing to register his cross-case in Crime No. 123/1995, sentencing him to one year's RI under s.7 and two years' RI under s.13 of the PC Act 1988. The Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal (pursued by his legal heirs after his death) on 15 July 2022.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169150883/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-06-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-06-005)

## State of Rajasthan vs Rajasthan Police Head Constable (t2w2-08-016)

**Record:** t2w2-08-016
**Title:** State of Rajasthan vs Rajasthan Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Udaipur (Criminal Case No.47/1978) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State of Rajasthan vs Rajasthan Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 3 May 1983
**Incident date:** 1977-09-12 (1977)
**Place:** Chittorgarh, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 161; PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d); PC Act 1947 s.5(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Arnod, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Chittorgarh resident
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs.250 fine on each count (concurrent; 6 months SI in default)

Head Constable of Arnod (Chittorgarh), who arrested a Chittorgarh resident under s.110 CrPC and extorted Rs.100 + Rs.200 of a Rs.500 illegal-gratification demand, was convicted on 3 May 1983 by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Udaipur in CC No.47/1978 under IPC s.161 and PC Act 1947 s.5(1)(d)/(2) and sentenced to 2 years' RI with Rs.250 fine per count. The Rajasthan High Court allowed his appeal on 16 January 2001 (S.B. Crl.A. 198/1983); the Supreme Court (K.G. Balakrishnan & AR. Lakshmanan, JJ., 2004(8)SCC169) on 12 October 2004 set aside the acquittal as not on merits and remitted the appeal to the High Court, whose final decision is not traced.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/520646/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Unknown

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-016)

## CBI vs Rajasthan Police Constable (t2w2-08-023)

**Record:** t2w2-08-023
**Title:** CBI vs Rajasthan Police Constable
**Court:** Trial Court (CBI charge-sheet case; exact designation not stated in SC judgment) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Rajasthan Police Constable
**Conviction:** 21 December 2005
**Incident date:** 1994-02-02 (1994)
**Place:** Barmer, Rajasthan
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.326; IPC s.342; IPC s.120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Kishore Singh (Constable); Sumer Dan (Assistant Sub-Inspector); Sohan Singh (SHO)
**Victims:** Barmer man
**Sentence:** Trial: Kishore Singh life (s.326) + 7yr RI (s.308) + ss.323/343 terms; Sumer Dan 10yr RI (s.326/114) + 7yr RI (s.308/114) + 5yr RI (s.120B); Sohan Singh 6mo RI (s.323) + 1yr RI (s.343)

Constable Kishore Singh, ASI Sumer Dan and SHO Sohan Singh kept \[name withheld\] in a Barmer police lock-up from 2 to 5 February 1994 without producing him before a magistrate and subjected him to third-degree torture culminating in Kishore Singh severing his penis with a razor while Sumer Dan held him; the trial court convicted all three on 21 December 2005 (life for Kishore Singh under s.326, 10 years for Sumer Dan, short terms for Sohan Singh) on a CBI charge-sheet. The Rajasthan High Court (19-11-2008) acquitted Sohan Singh and Sumer Dan and reduced Kishore Singh's sentence, but the Supreme Court (T.S. Thakur & Markandey Katju, JJ., (2011)6SCC369) on 25 October 2010 set aside the HC judgment as a 'gross travesty of justice', sentencing Kishore Singh to 5 years' RI (s.326) + 6 months (s.342), Sumer Dan to 3 years' RI (s.326/120B) + 6 months (s.342), and Sohan Singh to 6 months' SI (s.342), with fines payable as victim compensation.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1473938/); [amnesty.org](https://www.amnesty.org/ru/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa200171994en.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-023)

## State (ACB trap 07-10-1997) vs Rajasthan Police Head Constable (t2w2-08-035)

**Record:** t2w2-08-035
**Title:** State (ACB trap 07-10-1997) vs Rajasthan Police Head Constable
**Court:** Trial (Special ACB) Court (exact designation not stated; Crl. Appeal No.240/2001) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB trap 07-10-1997) vs Rajasthan Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 22 November 2010
**Incident date:** 1997-10-07 (1997)
**Place:** Alwar, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Alwar (Rajasthan Police)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine

Head Constable (Alwar), trapped on 7 October 1997, was convicted by the trial court under PC Act ss.13(1)(d)/13(2) and sentenced to 2 years' RI with Rs.5,000 fine; the conviction pre-dates Criminal Appeal No.240/2001 in which his sentence was suspended, so the verdict falls around 2000-2001. After cycles of suspension and reinstatement, SP Alwar removed him from service on 8 March 2010 on the ground of conviction; the Single Bench dismissed his writ (SB CWP 4125/2010, 19-04-2010) and the Division Bench (Acting CJ Arun Mishra & Dalip Singh, J.) heard the intra-court appeal on 22-11-2010. Trial court name and exact conviction date not stated.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182485213/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-035)

## State (ACB) vs Rajasthan Police Constable (कॉनिस्टेबल) (t2w3-13-001)

**Record:** t2w3-13-001
**Title:** State (ACB) vs Rajasthan Police Constable (कॉनिस्टेबल)
**Court:** Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bikaner (भ्रष्टाचार निवारण न्यायालय, बीकानेर) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) vs Rajasthan Police Constable (कॉनिस्टेबल)
**Conviction:** 28 October 2014
**Incident date:** 2006-10-03 (2006)
**Place:** Churu, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2); IPC s.201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (कॉनिस्टेबल), Police Station Bhanipura, District Churu, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Churu resident
**Sentence:** 2 years RI under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act + 1 year RI under IPC s.420

The ACB Rajasthan press note dated 28.10.2014 records that the Special (PC Act) Court, Bikaner sentenced then-Constable of PS Bhanipura (Churu) to two years rigorous imprisonment under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act 1988 plus one year RI under IPC s.420, with fines. The ACB states he was trapped on complaint of a Churu resident while taking an Rs 800 bribe to act on a submitted report. No appeal is noted in the press note.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2016id_/http://acb.rajasthan.gov.in/Files/Upload/1028201452058PM-Press%20note-2014-10-28-Consistable-PS%20Bhanipura-Churu.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-13-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-13-001)

## State (ACB) vs Rajasthan Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (सहायक पुलिस निरीक्षक) (t2w3-13-002)

**Record:** t2w3-13-002
**Title:** State (ACB) vs Rajasthan Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (सहायक पुलिस निरीक्षक)
**Court:** Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Kota (भ्रष्टाचार निवारण न्यायालय, कोटा) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (ACB) vs Rajasthan Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (सहायक पुलिस निरीक्षक)
**Conviction:** 27 May 2015
**Incident date:** 2002-02-06 (2002)
**Place:** Baran, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (सहायक पुलिस निरीक्षक), Police Station Maanglore (मांगलोर), District Baran, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Baran resident
**Sentence:** 4 years RI under s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) + 3 years RI under s.7 PC Act 1988

The ACB Rajasthan press note dated 27.05.2015 records that the Special (PC Act) Court, Kota sentenced then-ASI \[name withheld\] of PS Maanglore (Baran) to four years RI under s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and three years RI under s.7 of the PC Act 1988, with fines of Rs 10,000 and Rs 5,000. The ACB states he was trapped on 06.02.2002 while taking a Rs 1,500 bribe from complainant \[name withheld\] to weaken a case registered against him. No appeal is noted in the press note.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2016id_/http://acb.rajasthan.gov.in/Files/Upload/5282015115438AM-ACB-HQ-Jaipur-Press%20note-2015-05-27-ASI-PS%20Maanglore-Baran.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-13-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-13-002)

## State vs Jaisalmer Police Head Constable (Constable from 30-04-1971, promoted 26-03-1973) (t2w2-08-036)

**Record:** t2w2-08-036
**Title:** State vs Jaisalmer Police Head Constable (Constable from 30-04-1971, promoted 26-03-1973)
**Court:** Sessions Court (exact designation not stated; s.304B IPC triable by Sessions Court; SB Crl. Appeal 117/2001 at Jodhpur) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Jaisalmer Police Head Constable (Constable from 30-04-1971, promoted 26-03-1973)
**Conviction:** 15 February 2001
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jaisalmer, Rajasthan
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 498A
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (Constable from 30-04-1971, promoted 26-03-1973), Police Wireless/Telecommunication, Jaisalmer (R/o Police Line, Jaisalmer)
**Victims:** Jaisalmer woman
**Sentence:** 10 years RI (trial court)

Head Constable (Police Wireless, Jaisalmer) was convicted on 15 February 2001 under IPC ss.304B/498A and sentenced to 10 years' RI; he was dismissed from service on 10-10-2001 under Rule 19(2) CCA Rules. The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur (SB Criminal Appeal No.117/2001) on 10 March 2004 set aside the s.304B conviction but retained the s.498A conviction, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. His widow \[name withheld\]'s writ (SB CWP 5632/2007) seeking quashing of the dismissal was decided by \[name withheld\] on 13 February 2017. Trial court name and case facts not stated; appeal treated as conviction sustained in part.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176932992/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-036)

## State vs Bundi Police Head Constable (t2w2-08-034)

**Record:** t2w2-08-034
**Title:** State vs Bundi Police Head Constable
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Bundi (Sessions Case No.177/2013) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Bundi Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 1 December 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bundi, Rajasthan
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.306
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, PS Sadar, Bundi (R/o Ganeshpura)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years RI + Rs.25,000 fine

Head Constable (PS Sadar, Bundi) was convicted on 1 December 2018 by the Sessions Judge, Bundi in Sessions Case No.177/2013 under IPC s.306 (abetment of suicide) and sentenced to 5 years' RI with Rs.25,000 fine; SP Bundi removed him from service on 17-12-2018 on account of the conviction. A coordinate bench suspended the sentence on 21-12-2018, and Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha allowed his stay-of-conviction application (SB Cr. Misc. Stay Appl. 4265/2022) on 12 September 2022, staying the conviction order till pendency of S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2221/2018. Case facts and victim identity not stated in the stay order.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91580009/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-08-034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-08-034)

## State v. Rajasthan Police Constable No.1515 (at time of offence) (t2w3-34-006)

**Record:** t2w3-34-006
**Title:** State v. Rajasthan Police Constable No.1515 (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases), Jodhpur (court number not stated in cited order; inferred) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Rajasthan Police Constable No.1515 (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 2 March 2020
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jodhpur, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable No.1515 (at time of offence), Police Station Luni, Jodhpur Commissionerate, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years simple imprisonment

Constable1515 \[name withheld\] of PS Luni, Jodhpur Commissionerate was convicted on 02.03.2020 in Criminal Case No.15/2013 under PC Act ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) and sentenced to two years' simple imprisonment. The suspension order names only 'the trial court'; the convicting court is recorded here as the Special Judge (PC Act Cases), Jodhpur by inference from jurisdiction (exact court number not stated in the cited order). Sentence suspended by the Rajasthan High Court on 18.03.2020 pending S.B. Criminal Appeal No.362/2020.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166752046/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-34-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-34-006)

## CBI vs Rajasthan Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (then Deeg DSP) (t2-06-009)

**Record:** t2-06-009
**Title:** CBI vs Rajasthan Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (then Deeg DSP)
**Court:** District & Sessions Judge, Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Rajasthan Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (then Deeg DSP)
**Conviction:** 21 July 2020
**Incident date:** 1985-02-21 (1985)
**Place:** Deeg, Rajasthan
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 147; IPC 148; IPC 302; IPC 323 r/w 149; IPC 193; IPC 218
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police (then Deeg DSP), Rajasthan Police, Deeg; Sub-Inspector (SHO), Rajasthan Police, Deeg; Police personnel, Rajasthan Police; Police personnel, Rajasthan Police; Police personnel, Rajasthan Police; Police personnel, Rajasthan Police; Police personnel, Rajasthan Police; Constable, Rajasthan Police; Police personnel, Rajasthan Police; Police personnel, Rajasthan Police; Sub-Inspector, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Deeg man; Deeg man; Deeg man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment + Rs 10,000 fine each (sentenced 22 July 2020); 3 acquitted, 4 died during trial

The Special CBI Court, Mathura (Judge Sadhna Rani Thakur) convicted 11 Rajasthan policemen on 21 July 2020 and sentenced them to life on 22 July 2020 for the staged-encounter murder of Bharatpur ex-royal a Deeg man and supporters \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] at Deeg on 21 February 1985, a day after Singh rammed the CM's helicopter. The CBI had chargesheeted 18 policemen; four died during trial and three were acquitted. The trial was shifted from Rajasthan to Mathura on the Supreme Court's order; convict ex-DSP \[name withheld\] died in September 2020.

**Sources (9):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzA2OA==); [indianexpress.com](https://indianexpress.com/article/india/bharatpur-raja-man-singh-encounter-convicts-life-sentence-6518219/); [indsamachar.com](https://indsamachar.com/life-imprisonment-for-11-cops-convicted-for-rajasthan-ex-royals-murder-in-1985/); [lawstreet.co](https://lawstreet.co/crime-police-and-law/bharatpur-raja-man-singh-encounter-case); [timesofindia.indiatimes.com](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/agra/all-11-ex-cops-guilty-of-killing-bharatpur-royal-scion-and-his-two-colleagues-given-life-term/articleshow/77107343.cms); [hindustantimes.com](https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/cbi-court-convicts-11-cops-including-deputy-sp-for-ex-royal-s-murder-in-rajasthan/story-M54w3o75NfoSpVSzfXnjlK.html); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/india/news/raja-man-singh-case-11-policemen-sentenced-to-life-for-rajasthan-kings-murder-in-1985-1909306.html); [ndtv.com](https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/rajasthan-raja-man-singhs-killing-all-11-ex-cops-guilty-sent-to-jail-for-life-2267085); [thehindu.com](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/rajasthan-ex-royal-raja-man-singh-murder-11-policemen-including-dsp-sentenced-to-life-imprisonment/article32161186.ece)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-06-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-06-009)

## State v. Rajasthan Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence) (t2w3-34-009)

**Record:** t2w3-34-009
**Title:** State v. Rajasthan Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge, Session Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Rajasthan Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 8 October 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kota, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence), Police Station Bhimganjmandi, Kota, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Maximum term of 4 years

Then ASI of PS Bhimganjmandi, Kota (in judicial custody since 08.10.2021) was convicted by the Special Judge, Session Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota on 08.10.2021 in Session Case No.16/2009 under PC Act ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) and sentenced to a maximum of four years. Sentence suspended by the Rajasthan High Court on 11.11.2021 pending S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1672/2021. Distinct from RAC Head Constable in the 1985 Mathura case (t2-06-009/t2-13-021).

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25812261/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-34-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-34-009)

## State of Rajasthan v. Jodhpur Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2w3-14-001)

**Record:** t2w3-14-001
**Title:** State of Rajasthan v. Jodhpur Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) No.1, Jodhpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State of Rajasthan v. Jodhpur Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 6 May 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jodhpur, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Soorsagar, District Jodhpur (R/o Kalyanpur, PS Kalyanpur, Barmer)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI

The Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) No.1, Jodhpur convicted ASI of PS Soorsagar, Jodhpur on 06.05.2022 in Sessions Case No.04/2010 under PC Act ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and sentenced him to three years' RI with a Rs.1,000 fine. The Rajasthan High Court suspended the sentence on 06.06.2022 pending disposal of his appeal (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.709/2022); the defence contended false implication out of enmity.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3086799/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-14-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-14-001)

## State of Rajasthan v. Jaipur Police Station House Officer (SHO; then SHO) (t2w3-14-002)

**Record:** t2w3-14-002
**Title:** State of Rajasthan v. Jaipur Police Station House Officer (SHO; then SHO)
**Court:** ACD Court No.3, Jaipur (Judge Rajkumar Saini) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State of Rajasthan v. Jaipur Police Station House Officer (SHO; then SHO)
**Conviction:** 30 May 2022
**Incident date:** 2013-07-16 (2013)
**Place:** Jaipur, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 (bribery; exact sections not stated in press note)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station House Officer (SHO; then SHO), Police Station Muhana, Jaipur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment on each of two counts (02-02 years RI) with Rs.50,000 fine

According to an official Rajasthan ACB press note dated 30.05.2022, ACD Court No.3 Jaipur (Judge Rajkumar Saini) convicted then-SHO \[name withheld\] of PS Muhana, Jaipur in a nine-year-old trap case, sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment on each of two counts with a Rs.50,000 fine under the Prevention of Corruption Act (sections not specified in the note). The note states Gaur had demanded Rs.1 lakh from complainant to help him in case No.110/2013 and was trapped by ACB Jaipur on 16.07.2013, with bribe notes later recovered from his house. No appeal status is stated in the press note.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20250321235547/https://home.rajasthan.gov.in/content/dam/homeportal/anticorruptionbureaudepartment/press_notes/Press%20Note-2022/482-SHO-VDN-HKGaur.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20250321235547/https://home.rajasthan.gov.in/content/homeportal/en/acbdepartment/pressrelease.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-14-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-14-002)

## CBI v. Rajasthan Police DySP (then DySP, Sawai Madhopur) and others (t2-13-033)

**Record:** t2-13-033
**Title:** CBI v. Rajasthan Police DySP (then DySP, Sawai Madhopur) and others
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Rajasthan Police DySP (then DySP, Sawai Madhopur) and others
**Conviction:** 18 November 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated (2011)
**Place:** Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** DySP (then DySP, Sawai Madhopur), Rajasthan Police, Sawai Madhopur
**Victims:** Sawai Madhopur man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment + fine (Rs 2,000 to Rs 50,000 across the 30 convicts)

The Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur sentenced thirty accused including Rajasthan DySP \[name withheld\] to life imprisonment for the murder of Mantown SHO, who was burnt alive in his official vehicle by a riotous mob during communal rioting after taking refuge in it. The CBI took over the \[name withheld\]-police case in June 2011. Only the DySP among the thirty convicts is police personnel; the rest are private persons. Incident circa 2011 per registration date.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NTM1Mw==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-033)

## State v. Rajasthan Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (erstwhile; at time of offence) (t2w3-34-011)

**Record:** t2w3-34-011
**Title:** State v. Rajasthan Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (erstwhile; at time of offence)
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Special Court Prevention of Corruption Act, Sriganganagar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Rajasthan Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (erstwhile; at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 25 May 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.7; IPC s.120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (erstwhile; at time of offence), Police Chowki Bajuwal, Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Maximum 2 years rigorous imprisonment (lesser punishment for s.7 PC Act and s.120B IPC counts)

Erstwhile ASI of Police Chowki Bajuwal, PS Raisinghnagar was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Special Court Prevention of Corruption Act, Sriganganagar on 10.05.2023 in Sessions Case No.4/2013 under PC Act s.13(1)(d)/13(2) (max two years' RI with Rs.3,000 compensation fine) with lesser punishment under s.7 PC Act and s.120B IPC. Sentence suspended by the Rajasthan High Court on 25.05.2023 pending S.B. Criminal Appeal No.797/2023.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8738519/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-34-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-34-011)

## State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable No.866 (at time of offence) (t2w3-34-005)

**Record:** t2w3-34-005
**Title:** State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable No.866 (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bhilwara (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable No.866 (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 12 June 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bhilwara, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable No.866 (at time of offence), Police Station Asind, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Maximum imprisonment of 4 years

Then Head Constable866 \[name withheld\] of PS Asind, Bhilwara was convicted by the Special Judge, PC Act Cases, Bhilwara on 12.06.2023 in Sessions Case No.69/2015 (56/2011) under PC Act ss.13(1)(d)/13(2) and s.7 and sentenced to a maximum of four years' imprisonment. Sentence suspended by the Rajasthan High Court on 25.08.2023 (date corrected to 12.06.2023 on 05.10.2023) pending S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1203/2023.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117574017/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173573714/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-34-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-34-005)

## State v. Rajasthan Police Constable 1216 (t2w3-34-002)

**Record:** t2w3-34-002
**Title:** State v. Rajasthan Police Constable 1216
**Court:** District & Sessions Judge, Baran (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Rajasthan Police Constable 1216
**Conviction:** 22 August 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Baran, Rajasthan
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 341; IPC 324
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable 1216, Police Line, Baran, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Maximum punishment of three years

Constable 1216 \[name withheld\] of Police Line, Baran was convicted by the District & Sessions Judge, Baran on 22.08.2024 in Sessions Case No.124/2019 under IPC ss.341 and 324 and sentenced to a maximum of three years' imprisonment. Sentence suspended by the Rajasthan High Court on 20.09.2024 pending S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2427/2024.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188095293/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-34-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-34-002)

## CBI v. CISF Inspector (then Inspector) (t2-13-008)

**Record:** t2-13-008
**Title:** CBI v. CISF Inspector (then Inspector)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jaipur (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. CISF Inspector (then Inspector)
**Conviction:** 15 May 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated (2015)
**Place:** Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector (then Inspector), CISF Training Center, Behror, Rajasthan
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 3 years + total fine Rs 20,000 (both accused)

The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jaipur sentenced CISF Inspector and co-accused ITI Director Sunder Lal Chetiwal to 3 years' RI each in a bribery case involving a Rs 2.5 lakh demand to clear a candidate's medical test for a CISF constable-driver post. Chetiwal was caught red-handed accepting Rs 50,000 in a CBI trap; Mann's involvement emerged in investigation and both were chargesheeted in June 2015. Only Mann (CISF, a Central Armed Police Force) is counted as police personnel here. Incident district and exact trap date are unstated in the PR.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/Njk5MA==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-008)

## State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable No.910 (t2w3-34-004)

**Record:** t2w3-34-004
**Title:** State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable No.910
**Court:** Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bhilwara (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable No.910
**Conviction:** 31 May 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bhilwara, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable No.910, Police Chowki Mandal Choraha, Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Maximum punishment of 4 years simple imprisonment

Head Constable910 \[name withheld\] (bribe demand allegation Rs.5,000) was convicted by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bhilwara on 31.05.2025 in Misc. Cases No.02/2014 under PC Act ss.13(1)(d)/13(2) and s.7 and sentenced to a maximum of four years' simple imprisonment. Sentence suspended by the Rajasthan High Court on 06.06.2025 pending S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1284/2025.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173138629/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-34-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-34-004)

## State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable No.1078 (t2w3-34-001)

**Record:** t2w3-34-001
**Title:** State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable No.1078
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases) No.2, Udaipur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable No.1078
**Conviction:** 28 July 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Udaipur, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable No.1078, Police Station Goverdhan Vilas, District Udaipur, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year imprisonment

Then Head Constable No.1078 \[name withheld\] of PS Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur (bribe allegation ~Rs.800) was convicted by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases) No.2, Udaipur on 28.07.2025 in Special Sessions Case No.180/2019 (CIS 344/2014, FIR 274/2011 ACB Chowki Dungarpur) under PC Act ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) and sentenced to one year's imprisonment. Sentence suspended by the Rajasthan High Court on 11.08.2025 pending S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1976/2025.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146341620/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-34-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-34-001)

## State v. Rajasthan Police Constable No.720 (at time of offence) (t2w3-34-003)

**Record:** t2w3-34-003
**Title:** State v. Rajasthan Police Constable No.720 (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act No.1, Jodhpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Rajasthan Police Constable No.720 (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 10 October 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jodhpur, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.8
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable No.720 (at time of offence), Police Station Matauda, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years simple imprisonment

Then Constable No.720 \[name withheld\] of PS Matauda, Jodhpur was convicted by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act No.1, Jodhpur on 10.10.2025 in Criminal Case No.01/2020 under PC Act s.8 and sentenced to three years' simple imprisonment with Rs.30,000 fine. Sentence suspended by the Rajasthan High Court on 28.10.2025 pending S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2455/2025.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7602185/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-34-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-34-003)

## State v. Rajasthan Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence) (t2w3-34-010)

**Record:** t2w3-34-010
**Title:** State v. Rajasthan Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge, Session Court, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Kota (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Rajasthan Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 12 November 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kota, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2); IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (at time of offence), Police Station K Patan, District Bundi, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Maximum punishment of 3 years

Then ASI of PS K \[name withheld\], Bundi was convicted by the Special Judge, Session Court, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Kota on 12.11.2025 in Sessions Case No.04/2010 under PC Act ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and IPC s.120B and sentenced to a maximum of three years. Sentence suspended by the Rajasthan High Court on 25.11.2025 pending S.B. Criminal Appeal No.3038/2025. Distinct from ASI of PS Dantaramgarh, Sikar (Aug-2026 Sikar ACB court conviction in waves-1-2 corpus).

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84258016/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-34-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-34-010)

## State of Rajasthan v. Phalodi Police Head Constable No.105 (then posted) (t2w3-14-003)

**Record:** t2w3-14-003
**Title:** State of Rajasthan v. Phalodi Police Head Constable No.105 (then posted)
**Court:** Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Act Cases No.1, Jodhpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State of Rajasthan v. Phalodi Police Head Constable No.105 (then posted)
**Conviction:** 17 December 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Phalodi, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7 (as amended 2018)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable No.105 (then posted), Police Station Bap, Jodhpur (R/o Kalirana Nagar, Bhojasar, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur Rural)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI

The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Act Cases No.1, Jodhpur convicted Head Constable No.105 \[name withheld\] of PS Bap, Jodhpur on 17.12.2025 in Sessions Case No.12/2020 under PC Act s.7 and sentenced him to three years' RI with a Rs.15,000 fine; the High Court order notes he was caught red-handed taking a Rs.5,000 bribe. The Rajasthan High Court allowed his suspension-of-sentence application on 07.01.2026, suspending the sentence till disposal of his appeal (S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No.35/2026) and releasing him on bail.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178539039/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-14-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-14-003)

## State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable (at time of offence) (t2w3-34-007)

**Record:** t2w3-34-007
**Title:** State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable (at time of offence)
**Court:** Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases No.01, Udaipur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Rajasthan Police Head Constable (at time of offence)
**Conviction:** 7 February 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dungarpur, Rajasthan
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (at time of offence), Police Chowki Vaija, Police Station Dhambola, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Maximum 1 year simple imprisonment (substantive sentences concurrent)

Then Head Constable of Police Chowki Vaija, PS Dhambola, Dungarpur was convicted by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases No.01, Udaipur on 07.02.2026 in Misc. Case No.45/2012 (FIR No.129/2011, ACB Chowki Bhilwara) under PC Act ss.7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) and sentenced to a maximum of one year's simple imprisonment with Rs.10,000 fine. Sentence suspended by the Rajasthan High Court on 13.02.2026 pending S.B. Criminal Appeal No.346/2026.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79023831/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-34-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-34-007)

## Criminal (Human Rights) Case No. 6 of 1996 — State vs Rolland Christopher Chhetri (A-1, abated) & \[name withheld\] (A-2) (t2-12-008)

**Record:** t2-12-008
**Title:** Criminal (Human Rights) Case No. 6 of 1996 — State vs Rolland Christopher Chhetri (A-1, abated) & \[name withheld\] (A-2)
**Court:** Special Judge, Human Rights, South and West District, Sikkim (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Criminal (Human Rights) Case No. 6 of 1996 — State vs Rolland Christopher Chhetri (A-1, abated) & \[name withheld\] (A-2)
**Conviction:** 21 December 1999
**Incident date:** 1988-02-12 (1988)
**Place:** Gyalshing, Sikkim
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 364 r/w IPC 34; IPC 302 r/w IPC 34; IPC 201 r/w IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Special Branch, Sikkim Police (co-accused: DySP/Sub-Divisional Police Officer Rolland Christopher Chhetri, West Sikkim — died 09/10/1995, proceedings abated)
**Victims:** Gyalshing man
**Sentence:** 5 yrs RI + Rs 5,000 fine (6 mo RI default) u/s 364; imprisonment for life + Rs 10,000 fine (1 yr default) u/s 302; 3 yrs RI + Rs 5,000 fine (6 mo RI default) u/s 201 — concurrent, with set-off; fine to deceased's children

The Special Judge, Human Rights, South and West District, Sikkim, on 21 December 1999 convicted SI (Special Branch) \[name withheld\] for the abduction and murder of a Gyalshing man of Timberbong Busty under Sections 364/302/201 r/w 34 IPC. The chargesheet case was that on 12 February 1988 the two police officers abducted Sharma near Naya Bazar, murdered him at Zoom Busty, and disposed of the body across the river under Bijanbari PS (Darjeeling, WB). The Sikkim High Court (10/04/2001) and the Supreme Court (\[name withheld\] v. \[name withheld\] of Sikkim, (2002) 7 SCC 157, decided 19/08/2002) both dismissed his appeals, upholding the life sentence.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1001226/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194754/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-12-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-12-008)

## State (CBCID) v. Cuddalore Police Sub-Inspector (A-1) and others (t2w2-14-005)

**Record:** t2w2-14-005
**Title:** State (CBCID) v. Cuddalore Police Sub-Inspector (A-1) and others
**Court:** Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore (Sessions Case No. 99 of 1993) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State (CBCID) v. Cuddalore Police Sub-Inspector (A-1) and others
**Conviction:** 4 September 1997
**Incident date:** 1992-05-30 (1992)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 348; IPC 330; IPC 323; IPC 354; IPC 376(2)(a)(i)(ii)(iii)(b)(g); IPC 218
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (A-1), Chidambaram Town Police Station; Sub-Inspector (A-2), Annamalainagar Police Station; Mehboob Batcha (Head Constable (A-3)); S. Parthasaraty (Police Constable (A-6)); Police Constable (A-8), Annamalainagar Police Station; Karunanidhi (Police Constable (A-10))
**Victims:** Cuddalore man; Cuddalore woman
**Sentence:** A-3, A-6, A-8, A-10: 10 years RI + Rs 5,000 fine each (section 376(2)) plus 3-year RI terms on other counts; A-1, A-2: 3 years RI + fine each; sentences concurrent

The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore (Sessions Case No. 99 of 1993, CBCID Crime Nos. 160-162/1992) on 4 September 1997 convicted two sub-inspectors, a head constable and three constables who, as a special theft-detection team, wrongfully confined \[name withheld\] at Annamalainagar police station from 30 May to 2 June 1992 on suspicion of theft and beat him to death with lathis and boots, while gang-raping his wife \[name withheld\] inside the station and beating other detained witnesses. The court sentenced the four rapist-constables to 10 years RI each under section 376(2) IPC plus 3-year terms under sections 348, 330 and 354, and the two sub-inspectors to 3 years RI each (sections 218, 323, 348; A-2 also section 220), remarkably without any murder charge being framed. The Madras High Court confirmed the convictions on 28 November 2002 and the Supreme Court (Mehboob Batcha v. \[name withheld\], 29 March 2011) dismissed the appeal, lamenting that custodial murder by policemen deserved the death penalty.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26071083/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031104/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/421778/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/806082/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-14-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-14-005)

## Madurai Man v. Inspector & Ors (illegal detention and custodial torture, Samayanallur 2003); CC No. 6/2004 (t2w2-14-008)

**Record:** t2w2-14-008
**Title:** Madurai Man v. Inspector & Ors (illegal detention and custodial torture, Samayanallur 2003); CC No. 6/2004
**Court:** Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai (Human Rights Court; CC No. 6/2004) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Madurai Man v. Inspector & Ors (illegal detention and custodial torture, Samayanallur 2003); CC No. 6/2004
**Conviction:** 2004
**Incident date:** 2003-04-17 (2003)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 324; Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 s.30
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police (Law & Order), Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai
**Victims:** Madurai man
**Sentence:** Fine of Rs 4,000 (Rs 3,500 to victim as compensation under section 357(1) CrPC), in default 1 year RI; departmental censure (2008)

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, sitting as the Human Rights Court (CC No. 6/2004), convicted Inspector of Samayanallur police station for illegally detaining a Madurai man from 17 April 2003 — shuttling him between Kadupatti and Sholavandan stations without letting his family see him — and brutally beating him with a lathi all over his body, fracturing bones, while also seizing his mother and minor sister at 2 am on 21 April 2003. The court found he violated the victim's fundamental and human rights and sentenced him to a Rs 4,000 fine (Rs 3,500 compensation to the victim) under section 324 IPC read with section 30 of the Human Rights Act, in default one year's RI. The Madras High Court (2 July 2012, a Madurai man v. \[name withheld\]) relied on this conviction while noting the officer had since been promoted \[name withheld\] despite it.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110762246/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-14-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-14-008)

## State (CBCID) v. Cuddalore Police Sub-Inspector (A-1) and others (t2w2-14-014)

**Record:** t2w2-14-014
**Title:** State (CBCID) v. Cuddalore Police Sub-Inspector (A-1) and others
**Court:** Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. III), Vridhachalam (SC Nos. 183/1995 & 150/1997) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State (CBCID) v. Cuddalore Police Sub-Inspector (A-1) and others
**Conviction:** 31 May 2004
**Incident date:** 1993-03-22 (1993)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; IPC 120-B; IPC 342; IPC 348; IPC 330; IPC 323; IPC 324; IPC 331; IPC 326; IPC 354; IPC 201; IPC 218; IPC 217; IPC 220
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (A-1), Kammapuram Police Station, Cuddalore; Police Constable (A-2), Kammapuram Police Station, Cuddalore; Police Constable (A-3), Kammapuram Police Station, Cuddalore; Inspector of Police (A-5; accepted conviction, no appeal), Kammapuram Police Station, Cuddalore
**Victims:** Cuddalore man; Cuddalore resident; Cuddalore resident; Cuddalore resident; Cuddalore resident; Cuddalore resident; Cuddalore resident; Cuddalore resident; Cuddalore resident
**Sentence:** A-1 and A-2: life imprisonment + Rs 2,000 fine each (302) plus separate sentences on confinement/hurt/evidence counts; A-3: various imprisonment terms (331/326/354); A-2 and A-5: fine only on 201/217/218 counts; A-4 (SI) and A-6 (Dr. Ramachandiran) acquitted

The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. III), Vridhachalam, in a common judgment dated 31 May 2004 in SC Nos. 183 of 1995 and 150 of 1997 (CBCID Crime No. 5 of 1994), convicted an SI, two constables and an Inspector of Kammapuram police station for picking up burglary suspect \[name withheld\] (Kurava community, Mudhanai village) and eight of his relatives between 20 and 22 March 1993, illegally detaining and lathi-beating them in the station — \[name withheld\] was stripped, tied to a window and beaten black and blue on 22 March 1993 in front of his wife who had brought food — killing him that afternoon, dumping his naked body near Kuruvallappar Koil (passed off as an unidentified 304A death), and fabricating an escape story with a man-missing entry. A-1 and A-2 received life terms for murder. The Madras High Court (Justices R. Balasubramanian and A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, Crl.A. Nos. 735, 738 of 2004, 4 December 2006) confirmed the murder, confinement, hurt and evidence convictions of A-1 and A-2 (converting 302/120-B/34 to 302/34 and 324 to 323, sentences maintained), while acquitting A-3 of sections 331/326/354 (convicting him under section 323 with admonition under the Probation of Offenders Act) and dismissing the \[name withheld\] appeal against A-6's acquittal.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165147/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-14-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-14-014)

## State v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police (t2w4-05-002)

**Record:** t2w4-05-002
**Title:** State v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** VII Additional Sessions Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 22 September 2005
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Triplicane, Chennai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.1,000 fine (default 3 months RI) u/s 7; 2 years RI + Rs.1,000 fine (default 3 months RI) u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)

The Madras High Court (CJ Katju, W.P.No.28886/2004, order 22.09.2005) records that \[name withheld\], Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Triplicane, Chennai, was tried for PC Act offences and convicted by the VII Additional Sessions Court, Chennai on 30.06.2004 in C.C.No.16/2002 (1 year RI u/s 7; 2 years RI u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), each with Rs.1,000 fine). He filed Criminal Appeal No.957/2004 in which the sentence was suspended; the writ court ordered he be kept under suspension until the conviction is reversed. Appeal outcome not traced; recorded as pending.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1086666/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124697443/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=215002245100&title=v-natarajan-vs-deputy-inspector-general-of-police)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-05-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-05-002)

## State (V&AC Salem, Cr.No.1/AC/Spl.91) v. Salem Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w3-30-005)

**Record:** t2w3-30-005
**Title:** State (V&AC Salem, Cr.No.1/AC/Spl.91) v. Salem Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Judge and I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Salem, Cr.No.1/AC/Spl.91) v. Salem Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 20 October 2000
**Incident date:** 1991-01-23 (1991)
**Place:** Salem, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station, Salem
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI under each count (concurrent); on appeal modified to a single 1 year RI under s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)

The Madras High Court records that Sub-Inspector of Mecheri Police Station demanded and received Rs.500 from a complainant on 23.01.1991 for initiating proceedings in a pending assault case. The Special Judge, Salem convicted him on 20.10.2000 under PC Act sections 7 and 13(1)(d). On 13.04.2007 the High Court dismissed his appeal, confirming the conviction while merging the sentence into a single 1-year RI term.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1302893/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090282e4b014971115961e)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-30-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-30-005)

## State (V&AC Tiruchy, Crime No.15/2002) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Head Constable (A1) (t2w2-04-011)

**Record:** t2w2-04-011
**Title:** State (V&AC Tiruchy, Crime No.15/2002) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Head Constable (A1)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli (Special Court) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Tiruchy, Crime No.15/2002) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Head Constable (A1)
**Conviction:** 22 November 2007
**Incident date:** 2002-08-12 (2002)
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (A1), Thottiam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District
**Victims:** Tiruchirappalli man
**Sentence:** Convicted and sentenced 22.11.2007 (quantum not restated in appellate judgment). Co-accused SI (A2) and HC (A4) acquitted by trial court; SSI (A3) died during trial (charge abated).

The CJM Tiruchirappalli on 22 November 2007 convicted Head Constable of Thottiam police station (A1) for accepting a Rs.2,000 bribe in a 12 August 2002 V&AC trap to issue a Motor Vehicle Inspector requisition letter and release a van driver on bail after a road accident, while acquitting SI and HC for want of proof the money was for them (SSI died during trial). Tainted notes were recovered from \[name withheld\]'s uniform pocket with positive phenolphthalein tests. The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench, Justice G. Jayachandran) on 14 September 2018 dismissed the appeal pursued by his widow \[name withheld\] (Crl.A(MD)No.630 of 2007) and confirmed the conviction and sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15856771/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-011)

## State (V&AC Nagercoil, Crime No.2/1999) v. Chinnamoni (A1, SSI) & P. Paul Nadar (A2, HC) — Special Case No.3 of 2002 (t2w2-04-014)

**Record:** t2w2-04-014
**Title:** State (V&AC Nagercoil, Crime No.2/1999) v. Chinnamoni (A1, SSI) & P. Paul Nadar (A2, HC) — Special Case No.3 of 2002
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Nagercoil (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Nagercoil, Crime No.2/1999) v. Chinnamoni (A1, SSI) & P. Paul Nadar (A2, HC) — Special Case No.3 of 2002
**Conviction:** 5 December 2007
**Incident date:** 1999-10-08 (1999)
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(e)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Chinnamoni (Special Sub-Inspector of Police (A1; Sub-Inspector at offence)); P. Paul Nadar (Head Constable 307 (A2))
**Victims:** Kanyakumari resident
**Sentence:** Trial court: 5 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine (1 year RI default) for each offence. On appeal (30.07.2010): conviction confirmed but sentence reduced to 1 year RI per count, concurrent; fine unchanged; warrant to commit both to prison.

The Nagercoil CJM-cum-Special Judge on 5 December 2007 convicted SSI Chinnamoni (A1) and Head Constable P. Paul Nadar (A2) of Kanyakumari police station for detaining a motorcyclist on 4 October 1999 on a false illicit-liquor pretext, snatching Rs.370, extracting Rs.1,000 and demanding a further Rs.1,000 to release his motorcycle, for which a V&AC trap caught A2 receiving tainted money in the station verandah, sentencing each to 5 years RI with Rs.10,000 fine per count under PC Act ss.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e). The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench, Justice S. Palanivelu) on 30 July 2010 dismissed both appeals (Crl.A(MD)Nos.649-650 of 2007), holding the charges proved beyond reasonable doubt, but reduced the sentence to one year RI per count given the length of proceedings.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178059/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-014)

## State (DVAC) v. Ariyalur Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w4-05-001)

**Record:** t2w4-05-001
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Ariyalur Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** CJM cum Special Judge, Tiruchirappalli (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Ariyalur Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 23 April 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ariyalur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Vikkiramangalam Police Station, Ariyalur District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI

The DVAC official 'Convictions during 2008-09' list (entry 14) states that a Sub-Inspector of Police, Vikkiramangalam Police Station, Ariyalur District, was convicted on 23.04.2008 and sentenced to 3 years RI with a total fine of Rs.8,000 by the CJM cum Special Judge, \[name withheld\]. The list does not publish the officer's name, case number, or sections.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20100212121948/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2008-09.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-05-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-05-001)

## State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w3-01-007)

**Record:** t2w3-01-007
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Not stated on DVAC list (Special Court for PC Act cases) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** February 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, J-3 Guindy Police Station, Chennai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI

The DVAC official 'Convictions during 2011-12' list states that a Sub-Inspector of Police, J-3 Guindy Police Station, Chennai, was convicted on 29.02.2011 and sentenced to 1 year RI with a Rs.2,000 fine. Note: 29.02.2011 is not a valid calendar date (2011 was not a leap year), so month precision is used; the list is presumed to contain a date typo. Convicting court not stated on the list; name, case number and sections not published.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20181018235106/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2011-2012.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-01-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-01-007)

## State (DVAC) v. Salem Police Head Constable (t2w3-01-012)

**Record:** t2w3-01-012
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Salem Police Head Constable
**Court:** Not stated on DVAC list (Special Court for PC Act cases) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Salem Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 14 July 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Salem, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Kitchi Palayam Police Station, Salem District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 6 years RI

The DVAC official 'Convictions during 2011-12' list states that a Head Constable, Kitchi Palayam Police Station, Salem District, was convicted on 14.07.2011 and sentenced to 6 years RI with a Rs.5,000 fine. Convicting court not stated on the list; name, case number and sections not published.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20181018235106/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2011-2012.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-01-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-01-012)

## State (DVAC) v. Tenkasi Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w3-01-009)

**Record:** t2w3-01-009
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Tenkasi Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Not stated on DVAC list (Special Court for PC Act cases) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Tenkasi Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 14 September 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tenkasi, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Crime Police Station, Tenkasi; Head Constable, Crime Police Station, Tenkasi
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI (as stated; per-officer apportionment not stated)

The DVAC official 'Convictions during 2011-12' list states that a Sub-Inspector of Police and a Head Constable of the Crime Police Station, Tenkasi, were convicted on 14.09.2011 and sentenced to 3 years RI with a Rs.5,000 fine (the list does not say whether the term/fine is per officer or joint). Convicting court not stated; names, case number and sections not published.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20181018235106/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2011-2012.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-01-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-01-009)

## State (V&AC Tiruchirappalli) v. S. Viswam (A1) & Ors — S.C.No.32 of 2011 (t2w2-04-005)

**Record:** t2w2-04-005
**Title:** State (V&AC Tiruchirappalli) v. S. Viswam (A1) & Ors — S.C.No.32 of 2011
**Court:** Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Tiruchirappalli) v. S. Viswam (A1) & Ors — S.C.No.32 of 2011
**Conviction:** 2012
**Incident date:** 2003-06-13 (2003)
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** S. Viswam (Head Constable (A1))
**Victims:** Tiruchirappalli resident
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.5,000 fine (s.7) and 3 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine (s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)). Co-accused A2 and A3 acquitted by trial court. Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed by Madras HC (Madurai Bench, Justice P. Velmurugan) on 10 December 2018.

The Tiruchirappalli Special Court for PC Act cases convicted Head Constable S. Viswam of Lalgudi police station (A1) for demanding a Rs.3,000 bribe to release a milk van seized after a 12 June 2003 accident near Lalgudi and to issue the Motor Vehicle Inspector requisition, sentencing him to 1 year RI under PC Act s.7 and 3 years RI under s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d), while acquitting A2 and A3. The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on 10 December 2018 dismissed his appeal (CRL.A.(MD)No.254 of 2012), holding the prosecution proved demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and directed police to secure him for the remaining sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193212716/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-005)

## State (DVAC) v. Thanjavur Police Head Constable (t2w3-01-011)

**Record:** t2w3-01-011
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Thanjavur Police Head Constable
**Court:** Not stated on DVAC list (Special Court for PC Act cases) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Thanjavur Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 9 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Papavadu Police Station, Thanjavur District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI

The DVAC official 'Convictions during 2011-12' list states that a Head Constable, Papavadu Police Station, Thanjavur District, was convicted on 09.03.2012 and sentenced to 3 years RI with a Rs.10,000 fine. Convicting court not stated on the list; name, case number and sections not published.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20181018235106/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2011-2012.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-01-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-01-011)

## State (V&AC Thanjavur) v. Thanjavur Police Head Constable 295 (t2w3-30-004)

**Record:** t2w3-30-004
**Title:** State (V&AC Thanjavur) v. Thanjavur Police Head Constable 295
**Court:** Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Thanjavur) v. Thanjavur Police Head Constable 295
**Conviction:** 9 March 2012
**Incident date:** 2002-09-04 (2002)
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable 295, Papanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year 6 months RI (s.13) + 3 years RI (s.7), concurrent as confirmed on appeal

The Madras High Court records that Head Constable of Papanadu Police Station demanded Rs.1,000 to close a criminal case against the complainant's son and was caught in a V&AC trap at the station gate on 04.09.2002. The Special Court for PC Act Cases, Tiruchirappalli convicted him on 09.03.2012 under PC Act sections 7 and 13(1)(d). On 13.12.2018 the High Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55203699/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-30-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-30-004)

## State (DVAC) v. Salem Police formerly Commissioner of Police (t2w3-01-008)

**Record:** t2w3-01-008
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Salem Police formerly Commissioner of Police
**Court:** Not stated on DVAC list (Special Court for PC Act cases) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Salem Police formerly Commissioner of Police
**Conviction:** 30 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Salem, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** formerly Commissioner of Police, Salem
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 6 years RI

The DVAC official 'Convictions during 2011-12' list states that a formerly Commissioner of Police, Salem, was convicted on 30.03.2012 and sentenced to 6 years RI with a Rs.10,000 fine. The most senior police officer on any DVAC year-list found in this slice. Convicting court not stated on the list; name, case number and sections not published.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20181018235106/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2011-2012.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-01-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-01-008)

## State (DVAC) v. Karur Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w3-01-004)

**Record:** t2w3-01-004
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Karur Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Court, Trichy (Tiruchirappalli) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Karur Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 18 April 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Karur District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years RI

The DVAC official 'Convictions during 2012-13' list states that a Sub-Inspector of Police, Karur District, was convicted on 18.04.2012 and sentenced to 5 years RI with a Rs.8,000 fine by the Special Court, Trichy. The list does not publish the officer's name, case number, or sections.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20170731224714/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2012-2013.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-01-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-01-004)

## State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Police Constable Grade-I (t2w3-01-003)

**Record:** t2w3-01-003
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Police Constable Grade-I
**Court:** Special Court, Trichy (Tiruchirappalli) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Police Constable Grade-I
**Conviction:** 27 September 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable Grade-I, Thillai Nagar, Trichy
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 18 months RI

The DVAC official 'Convictions during 2012-13' list states that a Police Constable-I, Thillai Nagar, \[name withheld\], was convicted on 27.09.2012 and sentenced to 18 months RI with a Rs.3,000 fine by the Special Court, Trichy. The list does not publish the officer's name, case number, or sections.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20170731224714/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2012-2013.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-01-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-01-003)

## State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Head Constable (t2w3-01-005)

**Record:** t2w3-01-005
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Court, Trichy (Tiruchirappalli) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 16 November 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Lalgudy, Trichy
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI

The DVAC official 'Convictions during 2012-13' list states that a Head Constable, Lalgudy, \[name withheld\], was convicted on 16.11.2012 and sentenced to 4 years RI with a Rs.10,000 fine by the Special Court, Trichy. Note: a same-station 2012 conviction of HC (S.C.No.32/2011, 1-yr + 3-yr terms) is separately recorded as t2w2-04-005; the differing conviction date and sentence here indicate a distinct case. Name, case number and sections not published on the list.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20170731224714/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2012-2013.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-01-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-01-005)

## CBI v. Tamil Nadu Police Inspector of Police (t2w3-24-001)

**Record:** t2w3-24-001
**Title:** CBI v. Tamil Nadu Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Tamil Nadu Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 3 January 2013
**Incident date:** 1999-01-01 (1999)
**Place:** Karur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B; IPC 468; IPC 420 r/w 511; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, K. Paramathi Police Station, Karur, Tamil Nadu Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai convicted \[name withheld\], then Inspector of Police of K. Paramathi Police Station, Karur, and three private co-accused (a lorry owner, an advocate's clerk and a lorry driver) in a false motor-insurance claim conspiracy from 1999, and sentenced each to three years RI with a total fine of Rs.13,000. The release states \[name withheld\] created false witness statements, falsely implicated a substituted lorry in a fatal accident and filed the charge sheet before JM-II Karur, after which MACT Dharapuram awarded Rs.10.81 lakh compensation from Oriental Insurance Company; the co-accused advocate was acquitted.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzcxNw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-001)

## CBI v. Chennai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (then; joined CBI as Constable) and others (t2w3-24-016)

**Record:** t2w3-24-016
**Title:** CBI v. Chennai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (then; joined CBI as Constable) and others
**Court:** Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Chennai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (then; joined CBI as Constable) and others
**Conviction:** 19 February 2014
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 420; IPC 471 r/w 468
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police (then; joined CBI as Constable), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai convicted then-Sub-Inspector of Police (CBI) \[name withheld\] and sentenced him to four years RI with Rs.1 lakh fine for securing employment on a false and forged \[name withheld\] certificate. The release states he produced a forged certificate purportedly issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (C), Mylapore/Triplicane to join CBI as a constable and then secure appointment as a direct Sub-Inspector under the Scheduled Tribe quota; CBI chargesheeted him u/s 420 and 471 r/w 468 IPC.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzM3Nw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-016)

## State (DVAC) v. Karur Police Inspector of Police (t2w3-01-002)

**Record:** t2w3-01-002
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Karur Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Court, Trichy (Tiruchirappalli) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Karur Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 8 April 2014
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, Karur District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI

The DVAC official 'Convictions during 2014-15' list states that an Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, Karur District, was convicted on 08.04.2014 and sentenced to 3 years RI with a Rs.1,000 fine by the Special Court, Trichy. The list does not publish the officer's name, case number, or sections.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180109070140/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2014-2015.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-01-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-01-002)

## State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police (t2w3-01-001)

**Record:** t2w3-01-001
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Judge-cum-CJM, Thiruvallur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 24 November 2014
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Porur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI

The DVAC official 'Convictions during 2014-15' list states that an Inspector of Police, Porur, was convicted on 24.11.2014 and sentenced to 2 years RI with a Rs.1,00,000 fine by the Special Judge-cum-CJM, Thiruvallur. The list does not publish the officer's name, case number, or sections.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180109070140/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2014-2015.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-01-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-01-001)

## State (V&AC Erode, Crime No.5/AC/2009/ER) v. Baby (A1, SI) & Anr (A2, acquitted) — Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2014 (t2w2-04-009)

**Record:** t2w2-04-009
**Title:** State (V&AC Erode, Crime No.5/AC/2009/ER) v. Baby (A1, SI) & Anr (A2, acquitted) — Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2014
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Tiruppur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Erode, Crime No.5/AC/2009/ER) v. Baby (A1, SI) & Anr (A2, acquitted) — Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2014
**Conviction:** 16 December 2014
**Incident date:** 2009-06-19 (2009)
**Place:** Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Baby (Sub-Inspector of Police (A1))
**Victims:** Tiruppur man
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment + Rs.1,000 fine (3 months SI in default) under s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d); no separate sentence under s.7. A2 acquitted by trial court.

The CJM-cum-Special Judge, Tiruppur on 16 December 2014 convicted woman Sub-Inspector Baby of the Kangeyam Prohibition Enforcement Wing for demanding Rs.10,000 and accepting Rs.5,000 in a 19 June 2009 V&AC trap to release toddy-tapper complainant \[name withheld\] on bail without remand, sentencing her to one year simple imprisonment with fine under PC Act s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) (17 witnesses, phenolphthalein-positive recovery from her handbag; A2, who handled the cash because of her bandaged hand, acquitted). The Madras High Court (Justice P. Velmurugan) on 9 February 2023 dismissed her appeal (Crl.A.No.9 of 2015), holding demand, acceptance and recovery proved beyond reasonable doubt, and ordered her secured for the remaining sentence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182456692/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-009)

## State (V&AC Madurai, Cr.No.2/2003) v. Madurai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A1) (t2w2-04-007)

**Record:** t2w2-04-007
**Title:** State (V&AC Madurai, Cr.No.2/2003) v. Madurai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A1)
**Court:** Special Court for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Madurai, Cr.No.2/2003) v. Madurai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A1)
**Conviction:** 17 April 2015
**Incident date:** 2003-01-29 (2003)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police (A1), Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station, Madurai District
**Victims:** Madurai woman
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.5,000 fine (s.7) and 2 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine (s.13), concurrent; tainted notes recovered from behind a diary at the station. A2 (fellow SI) acquitted by trial court. Appeal (Crl.A(MD)No.129/2015) dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed by Madras HC (Madurai Bench, Justice M. Nirmal Kumar) on 6 January 2020.

The Madurai Special Court for PC Act cases on 17 April 2015 convicted Sub-Inspector of Thirumangalam Taluk police station for demanding and accepting a Rs.2,000 bribe in January 2003 to return a cheque to a woman complainant whose family was arrayed in Crime No.3/2003, sentencing him to 1 year RI under PC Act s.7 and 2 years RI under s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) after tainted notes were recovered from his station diary in a V&AC trap. His fellow Sub-Inspector (A2) was acquitted as he never handled the notes. The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on 6 January 2020 dismissed \[name withheld\]'s appeal, holding demand, acceptance and recovery clearly proved, and directed the trial court to commit him to prison.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179653898/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-007)

## State (V&AC Sivagangai, Cr.No.1/2010) v. Sivagangai Police Head Constable (A1) and others (t2w2-04-004)

**Record:** t2w2-04-004
**Title:** State (V&AC Sivagangai, Cr.No.1/2010) v. Sivagangai Police Head Constable (A1) and others
**Court:** Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Sivagangai, Cr.No.1/2010) v. Sivagangai Police Head Constable (A1) and others
**Conviction:** 10 March 2016
**Incident date:** 2010-01-06 (2010)
**Place:** Sivagangai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (A1), Puluthipatti Police Station, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai; Police Constable (A2), Puluthipatti Police Station, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai
**Victims:** Sivagangai man
**Sentence:** Trial court: 3 years RI + Rs.1,000 fine each under s.7 and 3 years RI + Rs.1,000 fine each under s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), concurrent. On appeal (Crl.A(MD)Nos.98 & 101/2016, 12 April 2022, Justice G. Ilangovan): s.13(2) conviction set aside; s.7 conviction sustained with sentence reduced to 6 months RI.

The Sivagangai Special Court for PC Act cases on 10 March 2016 convicted Head Constable and Constable of Puluthipatti police station for demanding and accepting a Rs.500 bribe on 6 January 2010 to send a passport verification report to the Regional Passport Office, Madurai, sentencing each to 3 years RI under both PC Act s.7 and s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) after a trap by V&AC Sivagangai (Cr.No.1/2010). The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on 12 April 2022 sustained the s.7 conviction but set aside the s.13(2) conviction and reduced the sentence to six months RI given the small amount and age of the matter.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26786347/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-004)

## State (V&AC) v. Karur Police Inspector of Police (t2w4-30-003)

**Record:** t2w4-30-003
**Title:** State (V&AC) v. Karur Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC) v. Karur Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 18 May 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (AWPS), Kulithalai, Karur District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** SI for 1 year (s.7) and SI for 2 years (s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)), concurrent

The DVAC Convictions during 2016-17 official list (POLICE section) records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur convicted the Inspector of Police, AWPS Kulithalai, Karur District on 18.05.2016 in CC No.05/2014, sentencing the officer to SI for 1 year with Rs.1,000 fine under s.7 of the PC Act 1988 and SI for 2 years with Rs.5,000 fine under s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d), to run concurrently. The officer personal name is not stated on the DVAC list. Appeal status is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180625045741/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2016-2017.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-30-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-30-003)

## State (V&AC Chennai CC-II, Crime No.5/AC/2009) v. Chennai Police Grade I Police Constable No.18216 (t2w2-04-015)

**Record:** t2w2-04-015
**Title:** State (V&AC Chennai CC-II, Crime No.5/AC/2009) v. Chennai Police Grade I Police Constable No.18216
**Court:** Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Chennai CC-II, Crime No.5/AC/2009) v. Chennai Police Grade I Police Constable No.18216
**Conviction:** 17 August 2016
**Incident date:** 2009-03-20 (2009)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Grade I Police Constable No.18216, K-10 Koyambedu Traffic Police Station, Chennai Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 6 months RI + Rs.1,000 fine (1 month SI default) under s.7; 1 year RI + Rs.1,000 fine (1 month SI default) under s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d), concurrent, with s.428 set-off.

The Chennai Special Judge for PC Act cases on 17 August 2016 convicted Grade I Constable of K-10 Koyambedu Traffic police station for demanding Rs.1,500 from a Scooty rider stopped at the MMDA signal, Arumbakkam on 20 March 2009 for want of an insurance certificate, sentencing him to 6 months RI under PC Act s.7 and one year RI under s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) with fines. The Madras High Court (Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira) on 29 August 2018 dismissed his appeal (Crl.A.No.684 of 2016), holding the charges proved beyond reasonable doubt, confirmed the conviction and sentence, and ordered him committed to serve the remainder.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120736864/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-015)

## State (V&AC) v. Sivagangai Police Inspector of Police (t2w4-30-005)

**Record:** t2w4-30-005
**Title:** State (V&AC) v. Sivagangai Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC) v. Sivagangai Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 6 November 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sivagangai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** RI for 3 years + fine under each of s.7 and s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)

The DVAC Convictions during 2016-17 official list (POLICE section) records that the Special Court, Sivagangai convicted the Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station on 06.11.2016 in CC No.4/2014, sentencing the officer to RI for 3 years with Rs.1,000 fine under s.7 of the PC Act 1988 and RI for 3 years with Rs.1,000 fine under s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The officer personal name is not stated on the DVAC list (distinct from the 2013 Karaikudi South conviction recorded in t2w2-04-018). Appeal status is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180625045741/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2016-2017.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-30-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-30-005)

## State (V&AC) v. Madurai Police Inspector of Police (A1) (t2w4-30-004)

**Record:** t2w4-30-004
**Title:** State (V&AC) v. Madurai Police Inspector of Police (A1)
**Court:** Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC) v. Madurai Police Inspector of Police (A1)
**Conviction:** 2 December 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police (A1), Jaihindpuram Crime Police Station, Madurai City; Special Sub-Inspector of Police (A2), Jaihindpuram Crime Police Station, Madurai City
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** A1: RI for 2 years; A2: RI for 1 year (u/s 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d))

The DVAC Convictions during 2016-17 official list (POLICE section) records that the Special Court, Madurai convicted an Inspector of Police (A1) and a Special Sub-Inspector of Police (A2) of Jaihindpuram Crime Police Station, Madurai City (spelt Jainhidpuram on the list) on 02.12.2016 in SC No.75/2011, sentencing A1 to RI for 2 years with Rs.10,000 fine and A2 to RI for 1 year with Rs.5,000 fine under ss.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act 1988. The officers personal names are not stated on the DVAC list. Appeal status is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180625045741/http://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions2016-2017.htm)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-30-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-30-004)

## CBI vs Karnataka State Reserve Police Assistant Commandant (t2w4-24-005)

**Record:** t2w4-24-005
**Title:** CBI vs Karnataka State Reserve Police Assistant Commandant
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Karnataka State Reserve Police Assistant Commandant
**Conviction:** 28 March 2017
**Incident date:** 2000-01-01 (2000)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Commandant, Karnataka State Reserve Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment (with co-accused \[name withheld\], then Branch Manager OBC Yelahanka, and T. Hemanth Alva; other private accused got 10 and 4 years RI)

The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, on 28 March 2017 sentenced \[name withheld\], then Assistant Commandant of the Karnataka State Reserve Police, to five years Rigorous Imprisonment for joining a year-2000 criminal conspiracy to defraud the Oriental Bank of Commerce Overseas Branch, Chennai, of about Rs 9.7 crore through a fictitious transfer payment order with forged signatures sent via BSN Commercial Bank, Malaysia, against fictitious import bills of M/s Stan Plus Holdings. The trial court found the accused guilty and convicted them after CBI investigation and chargesheet. Fine and appeal details beyond the shared Rs 5.1 lakh total are not stated in the release.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjY0NA==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-24-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-24-005)

## State (V&AC Krishnagiri, Crime No.05/AC/2004) v. G. Kandhasamy (HC) — Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2008 (t2w2-04-019)

**Record:** t2w2-04-019
**Title:** State (V&AC Krishnagiri, Crime No.05/AC/2004) v. G. Kandhasamy (HC) — Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2008
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri (Special Court) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Krishnagiri, Crime No.05/AC/2004) v. G. Kandhasamy (HC) — Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2008
**Conviction:** 14 August 2009
**Incident date:** 2006-09-01 (2006)
**Place:** Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** G. Kandhasamy (Head Constable)
**Victims:** Krishnagiri resident
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs.1,000 fine (3 months SI default) for each offence.

The Krishnagiri CJM on 14 August 2009 convicted Head Constable G. Kandhasamy of Bargur police station for demanding and accepting Rs.2,000 from tempo driver \[name withheld\] to release him on bail without remand in a 31 August 2006 motor-accident case (Cr.No.469/2006) and to send his vehicle for MVI inspection promptly, sentencing him to 2 years RI with fine on each count under PC Act ss.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d). The Madras High Court (Justice G. Jayachandran) on 19 February 2018 dismissed his appeal (Crl.A.No.504 of 2009), holding demand and acceptance proved beyond doubt, confirmed the conviction and sentence, and ordered him secured for the remaining term.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115312679/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-019)

## CBI v. CRPF DIG (then DIG) (t2-13-027)

**Record:** t2-13-027
**Title:** CBI v. CRPF DIG (then DIG)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. CRPF DIG (then DIG)
**Conviction:** 31 July 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** DIG (then DIG), Group Centre, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai; ASI (then ASI), Group Centre, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 2 years each + total fine Rs 65,000 (all three accused)

The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai sentenced CRPF DIG, ASI and private supplier Vijay Khanna (Madhur Enterprises) to 2 years' RI each for illegal gratification paid to expedite the firm's Coat Combat supply bills. CRPF is a Central Armed Police Force; included as police personnel per broad construction.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MTg4MA==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-027)

## State (V&AC , Crime No.14 of 2000) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Head Constable (t2w2-04-023)

**Record:** t2w2-04-023
**Title:** State (V&AC , Crime No.14 of 2000) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Head Constable
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Tiruchirappalli (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC , Crime No.14 of 2000) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 29 November 2007
**Incident date:** 2000-12-10 (2000)
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thiruverumbur Unit, Tiruchirappalli District
**Victims:** Tiruchirappalli man
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.1,000 fine (3 months RI default) under each count. Rs.1,000 tainted money recovered after accused threw it in a bush on seeing trap team; phenolphthalein-positive on hands and shirt pocket.

The CJM/Special Judge, Tiruchirappalli on 29 November 2007 convicted Head Constable of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thiruverumbur Unit, for demanding a monthly mamool of Rs.1,000 from reformed brewer a Tiruchirappalli man under threat of foisting a prohibition case (including booking him as an absconding accused in Cr.No.2243/2000) and accepting Rs.1,000 in a 10 December 2000 V&AC trap at his house, sentencing him to 1 year RI with fine on each count under PC Act ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2). The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench, Justice G. Jayachandran) on 5 September 2018 dismissed his appeal (Crl.A(MD)No.660/2007), holding demand, acceptance and recovery proved beyond doubt, confirmed the conviction and sentence, and ordered him committed to prison.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8629352/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-023)

## State (SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai, RC.12(A)/2007) v. Railway Protection Force Assistant Sub-Inspector (in charge) (t2w2-04-026)

**Record:** t2w2-04-026
**Title:** State (SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai, RC.12(A)/2007) v. Railway Protection Force Assistant Sub-Inspector (in charge)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** State (SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai, RC.12(A)/2007) v. Railway Protection Force Assistant Sub-Inspector (in charge)
**Conviction:** 18 April 2009
**Incident date:** 2007-03-14 (2007)
**Place:** Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector (in charge), Railway Protection Force, Milavittan Out Post, Tuticorin
**Victims:** Thoothukudi resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs.2,500 fine (6 months RI default) under each count, concurrent, with set-off. Tainted Rs.2,500 recovered from shirt pocket at Tirunelveli-Madurai bypass signal trap; phenolphthalein-positive.

The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai on 18 April 2009 convicted RPF Assistant Sub-Inspector, in charge of Milavittan Out Post, Tuticorin, for demanding Rs.2,500 from scrap merchant a Thoothukudi resident to not foist a false railway-property theft case against him and accepting it in a 14 March 2007 CBI trap at the Tirunelveli-Madurai bypass signal, sentencing him to 3 years RI with fine on each count under PC Act ss.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) concurrently. The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench, Justice G. Jayachandran) on 23 October 2018 dismissed his appeal (Crl.A(MD)No.109/2009), holding the independent witness, co-staff evidence and tainted-money recovery overwhelming, confirmed the conviction and sentence, and ordered him committed to prison.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/180988670/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-026)

## State (CBI/ACB/Chennai) v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A1) (t2w2-04-025)

**Record:** t2w2-04-025
**Title:** State (CBI/ACB/Chennai) v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A1)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** State (CBI/ACB/Chennai) v. Delhi Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A1)
**Conviction:** 26 March 2008
**Incident date:** 2005-02-25 (2005)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police (A1), Delhi Police, IGI Airport Police Station, New Delhi (offence committed at Melur/Madurai during investigation visit)
**Victims:** Madurai resident
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine (6 months RI default) under each count. A2 PC acquitted by trial court; no \[name withheld\] appeal against his acquittal.

The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai on 26 March 2008 convicted Delhi Police Sub-Inspector (A1) of IGI Airport police station for demanding a Rs.2-lakh bribe (bargained to Rs.50,000) from Melur manpower agent \[name withheld\] under threat of arrest while camping at Madurai in February 2005 to probe a fake Malaysian visa racket (Cr.No.115/2005 IGI Airport PS), catching him in a CBI trap with phenolphthalein-positive hands, and sentenced him to 2 years RI with fine on each count under PC Act ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), while acquitting co-accused PC. The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench, Justice G. Jayachandran) on 26 October 2018 dismissed his appeal (Crl.A(MD)No.205/2008), holding the false arrest memo proved the extortion design, confirmed the conviction and sentence, and ordered him committed to prison.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168550910/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-025)

## State (V&AC Sivagangai, Crime No.1/2005) v. Sivaganga Police formerly Head Constable (HC 1364) (t2w4-30-006)

**Record:** t2w4-30-006
**Title:** State (V&AC Sivagangai, Crime No.1/2005) v. Sivaganga Police formerly Head Constable (HC 1364)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Sivagangai (conviction entered by Madras High Court, Madurai Bench on State appeal) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Sivagangai, Crime No.1/2005) v. Sivaganga Police formerly Head Constable (HC 1364)
**Conviction:** 20 December 2018
**Incident date:** 2005-01-08 (2005)
**Place:** Sivaganga, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** formerly Head Constable (HC 1364), Thirubuvanam Police Station, Sivagangai District
**Victims:** Sivaganga man
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine per offence, concurrent (sentence imposed 20.12.2018)

The trial court (CJM-cum-Special Judge, Sivagangai) acquitted Head Constable of Thirubuvanam PS on 20.11.2009 in Spl.C.C.No.01/2006 (V&AC Sivagangai Crime No.1/2005; Rs.500 bribe demanded 08.01.2005 for not registering a case). On State appeal the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench, Justice P. Velmurugan, Crl.A.(MD)No.37/2010) reversed the acquittal, found \[name withheld\] guilty under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act 1988 on 04.12.2018, and sentenced him to 3 years RI with Rs.5,000 fine on each count to run concurrently (sentence order dated 20.12.2018). No further appeal is stated.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110547310/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-30-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-30-006)

## State (DVAC) v. Chengalpattu Police Head Constable (t2-01-019)

**Record:** t2-01-019
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Chengalpattu Police Head Constable
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpattu (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Chengalpattu Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 30 January 2019
**Incident date:** 2008-12-16 (2008)
**Place:** Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Uthiramerur Police Station, Kancheepuram district (at offence, 2006–2008)
**Victims:** Chengalpattu resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine u/s 7; 3 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) (Tamil OCR reads Rs.3,000 on second count; link text Rs.5,000)

The DVAC press note (Tamil) states HC of Uthiramerur P.S. accepted Rs.5,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] on 16.12.2008 to release his seized two-wheeler, was convicted by the CJM cum Special Judge, Chengalpattu on 30.01.2019, appealed to the Madras High Court, and Justice Jayachandran confirmed (upheld) the conviction on 21.04.2023. Appeal status verified from this official note; appellate judgment URL pending T2-20 lookup.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2023/21-04-2023-Judgement%20-%20CJM%20Chenani%2C%20SJ%2C%20CNI%2C%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.Chandrasekar%2C%20Head%20Constable%2C%20Chennai.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-019)

## State (V&AC Sivagangai, Crime No.2/2000) v. Sivaganga Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w2-04-018)

**Record:** t2w2-04-018
**Title:** State (V&AC Sivagangai, Crime No.2/2000) v. Sivaganga Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Sivagangai, Crime No.2/2000) v. Sivaganga Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 1 April 2013
**Incident date:** 2000-03-16 (2000)
**Place:** Sivaganga, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Karaikudi South Police Station, Sivagangai District
**Victims:** Sivaganga resident
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.1,000 fine (3 months SI default) under s.7; 2 years RI + Rs.2,000 fine (6 months SI default) under s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d), concurrent, with s.428 set-off. Rs.3,000 tainted notes recovered; phenolphthalein tests positive.

The Sivagangai Special Judge/CJM on 1 April 2013 convicted SSI of Karaikudi South police station for demanding Rs.5,000 (bargained to Rs.3,000 now plus Rs.2,000 later) from a bail-condition signatory to dilute the charge and close a property dispute in Crime No.06, catching him in a 16 March 2000 V&AC trap with Rs.3,000 tainted notes and positive phenolphthalein tests, sentencing him to 1 year RI under PC Act s.7 and 2 years RI under s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) with fines. The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench, Justice M. Dhandapani) on 22 February 2019 dismissed his appeal (Crl.A(MD)No.120 of 2013), confirmed the conviction and sentence, and ordered him committed to serve the remainder.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47631288/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-018)

## State (V&AC Kanniyakumari, Crime No.9/2005) v. S. Soosai Michael (HC) — Special Case No.5 of 2007 (t2w2-04-016)

**Record:** t2w2-04-016
**Title:** State (V&AC Kanniyakumari, Crime No.9/2005) v. S. Soosai Michael (HC) — Special Case No.5 of 2007
**Court:** Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Kanniyakumari, Crime No.9/2005) v. S. Soosai Michael (HC) — Special Case No.5 of 2007
**Conviction:** 26 April 2019
**Incident date:** 2005-11-16 (2005)
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** S. Soosai Michael (Head Constable)
**Victims:** Kanyakumari resident
**Sentence:** Trial court: 3 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine (9 months SI default) for each offence, concurrent. On appeal: conviction sustained, sentence reduced to 1 year RI per offence, concurrent.

The Nagercoil Special Judge-cum-CJM on 26 April 2019 convicted Head Constable S. Soosai Michael of Thuckalay police station for demanding a Rs.350 bribe on 16 November 2005 to file a passport verification report, catching him in a V&AC trap (Crime No.9/2005), and sentenced him to 3 years RI with Rs.5,000 fine on each count under PC Act ss.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) concurrently. The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench, Justice G. Ilangovan, pronounced 10 January 2025) dismissed his appeal (Crl.A(MD)No.230 of 2019), sustained the conviction, but reduced the punishment to one year RI for each offence.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149370957/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-016)

## State (DVAC) v. Kanyakumari Police Inspector of Police (t2w3-02-008)

**Record:** t2w3-02-008
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Kanyakumari Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Nagercoil @ Kanyakumari (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Kanyakumari Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 29 April 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanyakumari district (tried at Nagercoil)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine (default 6 months SI) u/s 7; 3 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine (default 6 months SI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases' official list records that an Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch was convicted on 29.04.2019 by the CJM/Special Judge, Nagercoil in CC No.04/2007 and sentenced to 3 years RI with Rs.10,000 fine on each count, in a bribery (trap) case. The officer's name is not published in the list; no press note survives on the live press page.

**Sources (3):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210613004111/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (live 'Convicted Cases' list; 2019 entries rolled off))
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-02-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-02-008)

## State (V&AC) v. Madurai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A3) & others including SI, Tallakulam PS (A3) — Spl.C.C.No.42/2011 (t2w4-30-001)

**Record:** t2w4-30-001
**Title:** State (V&AC) v. Madurai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A3) & others including SI, Tallakulam PS (A3) — Spl.C.C.No.42/2011
**Court:** Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC) v. Madurai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A3) & others including SI, Tallakulam PS (A3) — Spl.C.C.No.42/2011
**Conviction:** 20 August 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 467; IPC 467/109; IPC 167; IPC 468
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police (A3), Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI for each of 5 sections (5 x 2 = 10 years) for A3

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases' official list records that the Special Court for PC Act cases, Madurai convicted a Sub-Inspector of Police of Tallakulam P.S. (A3), along with a former Deputy Commissioner of Labour (A1), a private individual (A2) and an advocate (A4), on 20.08.2019 in Spl.C.C.No.42/2011, a forgery/criminal-misconduct case, sentencing A3 to 2 years RI on each of five IPC counts (120B, 467, 467/109, 167, 468) with Rs.1,000 fine per count. The officer's personal name is not stated on the DVAC list. Appeal status is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210613004111/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-30-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-30-001)

## State (V&AC) v. Madurai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A2) & others including SI, Usilampatti PS (A2) — Spl.C.C.No.43/2011 (t2w4-30-002)

**Record:** t2w4-30-002
**Title:** State (V&AC) v. Madurai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A2) & others including SI, Usilampatti PS (A2) — Spl.C.C.No.43/2011
**Court:** Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC) v. Madurai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A2) & others including SI, Usilampatti PS (A2) — Spl.C.C.No.43/2011
**Conviction:** 20 August 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 467; IPC 468; IPC 167; IPC 471/109; IPC 420/109; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police (A2), Usilampatti Police Station, Madurai District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI for each of 7 sections (7 x 2 = 14 years) for A2

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases' official list records that the Special Court for PC Act cases, Madurai convicted a Sub-Inspector of Police of Usilampatti Police Station (A2), along with a former Deputy Commissioner of Labour (A1), a Rajaji Hospital civil surgeon (A3) and an advocate (A4), on 20.08.2019 in Spl.C.C.No.43/2011, sentencing A2 to 2 years RI on each of seven counts including PC Act s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d), with Rs.1,000 fine per count. The officer's personal name is not stated on the DVAC list. Appeal status is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210613004111/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-30-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-30-002)

## State (DVAC , Cr.No.11/2012) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (A1) and others (t2w3-02-007)

**Record:** t2w3-02-007
**Title:** State (DVAC , Cr.No.11/2012) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (A1) and others
**Court:** Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC , Cr.No.11/2012) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (A1) and others
**Conviction:** 27 September 2019
**Incident date:** 2012-07-01 (2012)
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police (A1), Lalgudi Sub-Division, Tiruchirappalli district; Sub-Inspector of Police (A2), Lalgudi Police Station, Tiruchirappalli district
**Victims:** Tiruchirappalli resident
**Sentence:** A1 (DSP): 1 year RI + Rs.5,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 7; 2 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 13(1)(d). A2 (SI): 1 year RI + Rs.5,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 12

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases' official list records that the DSP, Lalgudi Sub-Division (A1) and the SI of Lalgudi P.S. (A2), \[name withheld\] were convicted on 27.09.2019 by the Special Court for PC Act cases, \[name withheld\] in Spl.C.C.No.16/2014. Pre-trial court records identify A1 as \[name withheld\] and A2 as SI, charged in DVAC Trichy Cr.No.11/2012 with demanding Rs.25,000 from complainant \[name withheld\]; A1 was sentenced under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) and A2 under s.12 (abetment).

**Sources (7):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210613004111/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/50551/k-selvamani-vs-state-trichy); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/50551/k-selvamani-vs-state-trichy (pre-trial writ record naming A1 [name withheld], DSP Lalgudi, and A2 [name withheld], SI Lalgudi PS; DVAC Trichy Cr.No.11/2012; Rs.25,000 demand from complainant Rajamanickam)); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/80481/k-selvamani-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/84027/pdf/ (Madras HC anticipatory-bail record, same crime number and officers)); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (live list; 2019 entries rolled off))
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-02-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-02-007)

## State (DVAC) v. Police Constable, D Coy Ulundurpet — Spl.C.C.Nos.41/2014 & 42/2014 (t2w3-02-005)

**Record:** t2w3-02-005
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Police Constable, D Coy Ulundurpet — Spl.C.C.Nos.41/2014 & 42/2014
**Court:** Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Villupuram (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Police Constable, D Coy Ulundurpet — Spl.C.C.Nos.41/2014 & 42/2014
**Conviction:** 14 October 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Viluppuram, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable, D Company, Ulundurpet (Villupuram detachment jurisdiction)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.1,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 7; 1 year RI + Rs.5,000 fine (default 6 months SI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases' official list records that a Police Constable, D Coy Ulundurpet was convicted on 14.10.2019 by the Special Court for PC Act cases, Villupuram in Spl.C.C.Nos.41/2014 and 42/2014 and sentenced to 1 year RI with fines on each count, in a bribery (trap) case. The officer's name is not published in the list; no press note survives on the live press page.

**Sources (3):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210613004111/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (live 'Convicted Cases' list; 2019 entries rolled off))
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-02-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-02-005)

## State (DVAC) v. Kanyakumari Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w3-02-006)

**Record:** t2w3-02-006
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Kanyakumari Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Kanyakumari @ Nagercoil (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Kanyakumari Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 12 November 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Thamaraikulam South Police Station, Kanyakumari district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years RI + Rs.50,000 fine (default 1 year SI) u/s 7; 5 years RI + Rs.50,000 fine (default 1 year SI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases' official list records that a Sub-Inspector of Thamaraikulam South P.S., Kanyakumari was convicted on 12.11.2019 by the CJM/Special Judge, Kanyakumari in CC No.02/2014 and sentenced to 5 years RI with Rs.50,000 fine on each count — the heaviest sentence in the 2019 police set — in a bribery (trap) case. The officer's name is not published in the list; no press note survives on the live press page.

**Sources (3):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210613004111/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (live 'Convicted Cases' list; 2019 entries rolled off))
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-02-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-02-006)

## State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police (former) (t2w3-02-004)

**Record:** t2w3-02-004
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police (former)
**Court:** Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police (former)
**Conviction:** 14 November 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police (former), Central Crime Branch (CCB), Egmore, Chennai-8
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.1,000 fine (default 6 months SI) u/s 7; 2 years RI + Rs.1,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases' official list records that a former Inspector of Police, CCB Egmore, Chennai-8 was convicted on 14.11.2019 by the Special Court for PC Act cases, Chennai in Spl.C.C.No.11/2012 and sentenced to 1 year RI (s.7) and 2 years RI (s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)) with fines, in a bribery (trap) case. The officer's name is not published in the list; no press note survives on the live press page.

**Sources (3):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210613004111/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (live 'Convicted Cases' list; 2019 entries rolled off))
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-02-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-02-004)

## State (DVAC) v. Erode Police Head Constable (t2w3-02-001)

**Record:** t2w3-02-001
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Erode Police Head Constable
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate / Special Judge, Erode (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Erode Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 26 November 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Erode, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Arachalur Police Station, Erode district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.5,000 fine (default 2 months RI) u/s 7; 2 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine (default 2 months RI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases' official list records that a Head Constable of Arachalur P.S., Erode was convicted on 26.11.2019 by the CJM/Special Judge, Erode in CC No.8/2015 and sentenced to 1 year RI (s.7) and 2 years RI (s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)) with fines, in a bribery (trap) case. The officer's name is not published in the list; no press note survives on the live press page.

**Sources (3):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210613004111/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (live 'Convicted Cases' list; 2019 entries rolled off))
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-02-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-02-001)

## State (DVAC) v. Madurai Police Head Constable (t2w3-02-003)

**Record:** t2w3-02-003
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Madurai Police Head Constable
**Court:** Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Madurai Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 16 December 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.1,000 fine (default 2 months SI) u/s 7; 1 year RI + Rs.1,000 fine (default 2 months SI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases' official list records that a Head Constable of Thirumangalam Town P.S., Madurai was convicted on 16.12.2019 by the Special Court for PC Act cases, Madurai in Spl.C.C.No.77/2011 and sentenced to 1 year RI with fine on each count, in a bribery (trap) case. The officer's name is not published in the list; no press note survives on the live press page.

**Sources (3):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210613004111/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (live 'Convicted Cases' list; 2019 entries rolled off))
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-02-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-02-003)

## State (DVAC) v. Madurai Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w3-02-002)

**Record:** t2w3-02-002
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Madurai Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Madurai Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 18 March 2020
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.1,000 fine (default 2 months SI) u/s 7; 1 year RI + Rs.1,000 fine (default 2 months SI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases' official list records that a Special Sub-Inspector of Nagamalai Pudukottai P.S., Madurai was convicted on 18.03.2020 by the Special Court for PC Act cases, Madurai in Spl.C.C.No.05/2013 and sentenced to 1 year RI with fine on each count, in a bribery (trap) case. The officer's name is not published in the list; no press note survives on the live press page.

**Sources (3):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210613004111/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (live 'Convicted Cases' list; 2020 entries rolled off))
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-02-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-02-002)

## State (DVAC) v. Madurai Police Inspector of Police (t2-01-028)

**Record:** t2-01-028
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Madurai Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate / Special Judge, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Madurai Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 14 December 2020
**Incident date:** 2010-01-01 (2010)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai detachment
**Victims:** Madurai resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs.2,000 fine

The DVAC press note states former Inspector of V&AC Madurai itself demanded and accepted Rs.1,20,000 through private individual Namachivayam to finalise a disproportionate-assets case in the complainant's favour, and was convicted by the CJM/Special Judge, Madurai on 14.12.2020. Notable: a vigilance-police officer convicted in a DVAC prosecution.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2020/14-12-2020%20-%20Judgement%20-%20Tr.S.P.S.Perumalpandian%2C%20formerly%20Inspector%20of%20Police%2C%20V%26AC%2C%20Madurai.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-028)

## State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police (t2-01-027)

**Record:** t2-01-027
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate / Special Judge, Chengalpattu Sessions Court (Judge A.K.K. Rajini) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 7 January 2021
**Incident date:** 2018-01-01 (2018)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, R-9 Valasaravakkam Traffic, Chennai
**Victims:** Chennai resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine

The DVAC press note states former Inspector of R-9 Valasaravakkam Traffic demanded and accepted Rs.8,000 for releasing a \[name withheld\]'s vehicle (storm-water-drain work), and was convicted in CC.No.03/2020 by the CJM/Special Judge, Chengalpattu Sessions Court (Judge Rajini) on 07.01.2021 after a speedy trial completed within three months.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2021/07-01-2021%20-%20Judgement%20-%20Tr.Iyyappan%2C%20formerly%20Inspector%20of%20Police%2C%20R-9%20Valasaravakkam%20Traffic.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-027)

## State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w4-31-001)

**Record:** t2w4-31-001
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Judge, Special Court for trial of PC Act Cases, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 17 May 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, formerly J5 Sasthiri Nagar Traffic Police Station, Chennai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)), concurrent

The DVAC official 'Convicted Cases \[2021-2022\]' list states that a Sub-Inspector of Police, formerly of J5 Sasthiri Nagar Traffic Police Station, Chennai, was convicted on 17.05.2021 and sentenced to 1 year RI plus 2 years RI (concurrent) with Rs.1,000 fines by the Special Judge, Special Court for trial of PC Act Cases, Chennai, in Special CC No.14/2014. The list does not publish the officer's name or bribe amount.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20231201165800/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-31-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-31-001)

## State (CBI, RC3(S)/2004/CBI/SCB/Chennai) v. Tamil Nadu Police Sub-Inspector (A-14) & Ors — Cuddalore Woman-Cuddalore Man honour killing (2003), S.C. No.3 of 2019 (t2w2-04-002)

**Record:** t2w2-04-002
**Title:** State (CBI, RC3(S)/2004/CBI/SCB/Chennai) v. Tamil Nadu Police Sub-Inspector (A-14) & Ors — Cuddalore Woman-Cuddalore Man honour killing (2003), S.C. No.3 of 2019
**Court:** Special Court for Exclusive Trial of SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases, Cuddalore (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State (CBI, RC3(S)/2004/CBI/SCB/Chennai) v. Tamil Nadu Police Sub-Inspector (A-14) & Ors — Cuddalore Woman-Cuddalore Man honour killing (2003), S.C. No.3 of 2019
**Conviction:** 24 September 2021
**Incident date:** 2003-07-07 (2003)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** false implication fabrication
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 217; IPC 218; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 s.3(2)(i); SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 s.4
**Officers (gated display forms):** K.P. Tamilmaran (Sub-Inspector (A-14)); M. Sellamuthu (Inspector (A-15))
**Victims:** Cuddalore woman; Cuddalore man
**Sentence:** Trial court sentenced both police officers to life imprisonment (13 of 15 accused convicted; main accused A-2 given death). Madras HC (8 June 2022) maintained Tamilmaran's conviction under IPC 217/SC-ST Act s.4 but reduced his sentence to 2 years RI; upheld \[name withheld\]'s life term. Supreme Court upheld all convictions 28 April 2025.

The Cuddalore Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Act cases on 24 September 2021 convicted Sub-Inspector K.P. Tamilmaran and Inspector M. Sellamuthu under IPC sections 217/218 and the SC/ST Act for deliberately refusing to register the FIR and fabricating evidence to shield the killers of inter-\[name withheld\] couple a Cuddalore woman and a Cuddalore man, murdered in July 2003, sentencing both officers to life imprisonment. The court found they violated CrPC sections 154/157 and the Police Act to fulfil a \[name withheld\]-driven design. The Madras High Court confirmed the verdict in June 2022 (reducing only Tamilmaran's sentence to two years) and the Supreme Court upheld the convictions on 28 April 2025 (2025 INSC 576).

**Sources (5):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146992794/); [livelaw.in](http://livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-convictions-in-kannagi-murugesan-honour-killing-case-of-tamil-nadu-290528); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29817701/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-11-including-2-police-officers-for-honor-killing-tn-couple); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/tn-honour-killing-case-supreme-court-upholds-life-sentence-of-police-inspector-for-fabricating-evidence-against-dalits-290616)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-002)

## State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police and others (t2-01-026)

**Record:** t2-01-026
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police and others
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Judge for PC Act cases) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police and others
**Conviction:** 29 November 2021
**Incident date:** 2009-01-01 (2009)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(e); IPC s.109
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, R.K.Pet Police Station (formerly); Economic Offences Wing, Chennai (at conviction); Private individual (wife of A1), N/A — co-accused
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** A1 \[name withheld\]: 3 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine; A2 wife: 1 year RI + Rs.10,000 fine; 3 houses of the accused ordered confiscated. DA quantum Rs.22,10,427

The DVAC press note states Inspector (formerly R.K.Pet P.S., then EOW Chennai) possessed assets disproportionate to known income of Rs.22,10,427, and he and his wife \[name withheld\] were convicted in CC.No.19/2012 by the Special Court, Chennai on 29.11.2021, with 3 houses confiscated. The only disproportionate-assets (non-trap) police conviction in this batch.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2021/29-11-2021%20-%20Judgement%20-%20Hon%E2%80%99ble%20Special%20Court%2C%20Chennai%20convicted%20the%20accused%20A1%20Tr.Mohamed%20Nazeer%2C%20Inspector%20of%20Police.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-026)

## State (DVAC) v. Thiruvallur Police Inspector of Police (A1) (t2w4-31-002)

**Record:** t2w4-31-002
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Thiruvallur Police Inspector of Police (A1)
**Court:** Special Judge, Special Court for trial of PC Act Cases, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Thiruvallur Police Inspector of Police (A1)
**Conviction:** 29 November 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(e)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police (A1), Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thiruvallur District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI

The DVAC official 'Convicted Cases \[2021-2022\]' list states that an Inspector of Police (A1) of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thiruvallur District, was convicted on 29.11.2021 and sentenced to 3 years RI with a Rs.5,000 fine under s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) (disproportionate assets) by the Special Judge, Special Court for trial of PC Act Cases, Chennai, in Special CC No.23/2011. A private individual co-accused (A2) was convicted alongside; the list does not publish the officer's name.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20231201165800/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-31-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-31-002)

## State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Head Constable (No.1495) (t2w4-31-003)

**Record:** t2w4-31-003
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Head Constable (No.1495)
**Court:** Special Judge, Special Court for trial of PC Act Cases, Trichy (Tiruchirappalli) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Head Constable (No.1495)
**Conviction:** 29 November 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (No.1495), Srirangam Police Station, Trichy District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d))

The DVAC official 'Convicted Cases \[2021-2022\]' list states that Head Constable 1495 of Srirangam Police Station, Trichy District, was convicted on 29.11.2021 and sentenced to 2 years RI plus 2 years RI with Rs.1,000 fines by the Special Judge, Special Court for trial of PC Act Cases, Trichy, in Special CC No.62/2011. The list does not publish the officer's name or bribe amount.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20231201165800/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-31-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-31-003)

## State (DVAC) v. Erode Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w4-31-004)

**Record:** t2w4-31-004
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Erode Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Erode (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Erode Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 9 March 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Erode, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Appakudal Police Station, Erode District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d))

The DVAC official 'Convicted Cases \[2021-2022\]' list states that a Sub-Inspector of Police, Appakudal Police Station, Erode District, was convicted on 09.03.2022 and sentenced to 1 year RI plus 2 years RI with Rs.5,000 fines by the CJM/Special Judge, Erode, in Special CC No.1/2015. The list does not publish the officer's name or bribe amount.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20231201165800/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-31-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-31-004)

## State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police (t2-01-025)

**Record:** t2-01-025
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 17 March 2022
**Incident date:** 2013-01-01 (2013)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Crime, Mylapore Police Station, Chennai-4
**Victims:** Chennai resident
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.1,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 7; 2 years RI + Rs.1,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); concurrent

The DVAC press note states SSI of Crime, Mylapore P.S. demanded and accepted Rs.4,000 from the complainant to file a charge sheet before the court and return the original document, in V&AC Headquarters Cr.No.14/2013, and was convicted by the Special Court under the PC Act, Chennai on 17.03.2022.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2022/17-03-2022%20-%20Judgement%20-%20Hon%E2%80%99ble%20Special%20Court%20under%20PC%20Act%2C%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.N.Chelladurai%2C%20SSI%2C%20Crime%2C%20Mylapore%20PS.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-025)

## State (DVAC) v. Virudhunagar Police Head Constable (t2w4-31-005)

**Record:** t2w4-31-005
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Virudhunagar Police Head Constable
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Sivagangai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Virudhunagar Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 8 April 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Srivilliputtur Taluk Police Station, Virudhunagar District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d))

The DVAC official 'Convicted Cases \[2022-2023\]' list states that a Head Constable of Srivilliputtur Taluk Police Station, Virudhunagar District, was convicted on 08.04.2022 and sentenced to 1 year RI plus 2 years RI with Rs.1,000 fines by the CJM/Special Judge, Sivagangai, in Special CC No.47/2014. The list does not publish the officer's name or bribe amount.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240527210632/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-31-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-31-005)

## State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Grade-I Police Constable (t2w4-31-006)

**Record:** t2w4-31-006
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Grade-I Police Constable
**Court:** Special Judge, Special Court for trial of PC Act Cases, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Grade-I Police Constable
**Conviction:** 13 April 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Grade-I Police Constable, B-1 North Beach Police Station, Chennai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d))

The DVAC official 'Convicted Cases \[2022-2023\]' list states that a Grade-I Police Constable of B-1 North Beach Police Station, Chennai, was convicted on 13.04.2022 and sentenced to 1 year RI plus 2 years RI with Rs.1,000 fines by the Special Judge, Special Court for trial of PC Act Cases, Chennai, in Special CC No.8/2015. The list does not publish the officer's name or bribe amount.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240527210632/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-31-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-31-006)

## State (DVAC) v. Thanjavur Taluk Police Inspector of Police (t2w4-31-007)

**Record:** t2w4-31-007
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Thanjavur Taluk Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Thanjavur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Thanjavur Taluk Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 28 July 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Taluk Police Circle, Thanjavur District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years SI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d))

The DVAC official 'Convicted Cases \[2022-2023\]' list states that an Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Taluk Police Circle, Thanjavur District, was convicted on 28.07.2022 and sentenced to 2 years SI plus 2 years SI with Rs.1,000 fines by the CJM/Special Judge, Thanjavur, in Special CC No.11/2014. The list does not publish the officer's name or bribe amount.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240527210632/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-31-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-31-007)

## State (DVAC) v. Erode Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2-01-024)

**Record:** t2-01-024
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Erode Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Erode (Judge Saravanan) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Erode Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 27 September 2022
**Incident date:** 2009-02-04 (2009)
**Place:** Erode, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Station, Erode district
**Victims:** Erode resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine u/s 7; 3 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine u/s 13(1)(d); concurrent

The DVAC-hosted press note (a Tamil newspaper clipping PDF) states SI of \[name withheld\]S. kept complainant \[name withheld\]'s original driving licence and demanded Rs.500 to return it, was arrested by Erode V&AC on 04.02.2009, and was convicted by the CJM cum Special Judge, Erode (Judge Saravanan) on 27.09.2022. Medium confidence: source is an officially hosted press clipping rather than a DVAC-authored note.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2022/27-09-2022-Judgement-CJM%2C%20Erode%2C%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.V.Chandran%2C%20SI%2C%20Ammapettai%20P.S.%2C%20Erode.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-024)

## State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Inspector of Police and others (t2-01-023)

**Record:** t2-01-023
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Inspector of Police and others
**Court:** Special Court, Tiruchirappalli (Special Judge for PC Act cases) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Inspector of Police and others
**Conviction:** 10 November 2022
**Incident date:** 2009-08-11 (2009)
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Tiruchirappalli City
**Victims:** Tiruchirappalli resident
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.10,000 fine (demand); 3 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine (acceptance); concurrent

The DVAC press note (Tamil) states Inspector of Airport P.S., \[name withheld\] phoned complainant \[name withheld\] on 11.08.2009 demanding Rs.5,000 to close a case against him favourably, was trapped accepting it, and was convicted on 10.11.2022. Court discrepancy: the Tamil PDF says Special Court, \[name withheld\] district; the press-page link text says 'Special Judge, \[name withheld\]'. \[name withheld\] (PDF body) taken as authoritative.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2022/10-11-2022-Judgement-SJ%20CJM%2C%20Trichy%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.Murugesan%2C%20Inspector%2C%20Airport%20PS.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-023)

## State (DVAC) v. Nagapattinam Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police (t2-01-022)

**Record:** t2-01-022
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Nagapattinam Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Court, Nagapattinam (Special Judge for PC Act cases) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Nagapattinam Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 23 November 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated (2011)
**Place:** Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Keezhaiyur Police Station, Nagapattinam district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year + Rs.5,000 fine (demand); 2 years + Rs.5,000 fine (acceptance); concurrent (press-page link text: '2 years imprisonment and fine Rs.5,000')

The DVAC press note (Tamil) states SSI of Keezhaiyur P.S. demanded Rs.3,000 to drop the complainant's relative's name from the charge sheet in a 2011 fence-dispute case, was trapped accepting it, and was convicted by the Special Court, Nagapattinam on 23.11.2022.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2022/23-11-2022-Judgement-Spl.Court%2C%20Nagapattinam%2C%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.Sivanandam%2C%20SSI%2C%20Keezhaiyur%20PS.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-022)

## State (DVAC) v. Virudhunagar Police Inspector of Police (t2-01-021)

**Record:** t2-01-021
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Virudhunagar Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Court, Virudhunagar (Special Judge for PC Act cases) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Virudhunagar Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 29 November 2022
**Incident date:** 2022-01-01 (2022)
**Place:** Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Ammathur Police Station, Virudhunagar district
**Victims:** Virudhunagar man
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine (demand); 3 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine (acceptance); concurrent (press-page link text: '3 years imprisonment and fine Rs.5,000')

The DVAC press note (Tamil) states Inspector of Ammathur P.S., who was investigating a case against lorry driver \[name withheld\], demanded Rs.4,000 to hand over the accident-hit lorry, was trapped accepting it, and was convicted by the Special Court, Virudhunagar on 29.11.2022.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2022/29-11-2022-Judgement-SJ%2C%20Virudhunagar%2C%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.Usman%20Ali%2C%20Inspr.of%20Police%2C%20Ammathur%20PS.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-021)

## State (V&AC, Madurai, Cr.No.2017 trap) v. Madurai Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w2-04-003)

**Record:** t2w2-04-003
**Title:** State (V&AC, Madurai, Cr.No.2017 trap) v. Madurai Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Court for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC, Madurai, Cr.No.2017 trap) v. Madurai Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 14 December 2022
**Incident date:** 2017-05-30 (2017)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadupatti Police Station, Madurai
**Victims:** Madurai resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs.2,000 fine (s.7) and 4 years RI + Rs.2,000 fine (s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)), concurrent; Rs.15,000 trap. Substantive sentence suspended pending appeal (CRL.M.P.(MD)No.16464 of 2022, Justice G. Ilangovan).

The Madurai Special Court for PC Act cases on 14 December 2022 convicted the Sub-Inspector of Kadupatti police station for demanding Rs.30,000 (reduced to Rs.15,000) to drop three names from Crime No.131/2017 and accepting Rs.15,000 in a V&AC trap laid on 30 May 2017 outside the police station, sentencing him to 3 years RI under PC Act s.7 and 4 years RI under s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) concurrently. Seventeen prosecution witnesses and 33 documents were examined at trial. The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) suspended the substantive sentence pending disposal of CRL.A.(MD)No.884 of 2022; the officer's name is redacted in the published order.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173424380/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-003)

## State (DVAC) v. Salem Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w4-31-008)

**Record:** t2w4-31-008
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Salem Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Judge, Special Court for trial of PC Act Cases, Salem (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Salem Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 15 December 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Salem, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem City
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7) + 1 year RI (s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d))

The DVAC official 'Convicted Cases \[2022-2023\]' list states that a Sub-Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem City, was convicted on 15.12.2022 and sentenced to 1 year RI plus 1 year RI with Rs.5,000 fines by the Special Judge, Special Court for trial of PC Act Cases, Salem, in Special CC No.115/2014. The list does not publish the officer's name or bribe amount.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240527210632/https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-31-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-31-008)

## State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Inspector of Police (t2-01-020)

**Record:** t2-01-020
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Court for the trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Tiruchirappalli (Special Judge Karthikeyan) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 28 March 2023
**Incident date:** 2006-11-01 (2006)
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Siruganur Police Station, Tiruchirappalli district
**Victims:** Tiruchirappalli man
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.10,000 fine (default 6 months SI) u/s 7; 5 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine (default 6 months SI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); concurrent

The DVAC press note states former Inspector of Siruganur P.S. demanded Rs.6,000 from farmer \[name withheld\] for booking a simple charge in a hurt case and releasing him on station bail, was trapped on 01.11.2006 in Cr.No.15/2006, and was convicted by Special Judge Karthikeyan, Special Court for PC Act cases, \[name withheld\] on 28.03.2023.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2023/28-03-2023-Judgement%20-%20SJ%2C%20TRI%2C%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.S.P.Selvaraj%2C%20Inspector%2C%20Siruganur%20PS%2C%20Trichy%20District.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-020)

## Chennai Police Head Constable convicted of bribery, CJM, Chennai (2023) (T2LC-01-017)

**Record:** T2LC-01-017
**Title:** Chennai Police Head Constable convicted of bribery, CJM, Chennai (2023)
**Court:** CJM, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Chennai Police Head Constable convicted of bribery, CJM, Chennai (2023)
**Conviction:** 21 April 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Chennai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + fine Rs.5000

Head Constable convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-017)

## C.C.No.8/2014 (T2LC-01-001)

**Record:** T2LC-01-001
**Title:** C.C.No.8/2014
**Court:** Special Judge cum CJM, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.8/2014
**Conviction:** 30 May 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Kabisthalam Police Station
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + fine Rs.3000

SI convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-001)

## Chennai Police Head Constable convicted of bribery, CJM, Special Court, Chennai (2023) (T2LC-01-016)

**Record:** T2LC-01-016
**Title:** Chennai Police Head Constable convicted of bribery, CJM, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Court:** CJM, Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Chennai Police Head Constable convicted of bribery, CJM, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Conviction:** 31 May 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Chennai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + fine Rs.20000

Head Constable convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-016)

## Special C.C.No.1/2013 (T2LC-01-002)

**Record:** T2LC-01-002
**Title:** Special C.C.No.1/2013
**Court:** CJM and Special Judge, Thoothukudi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Special C.C.No.1/2013
**Conviction:** 23 August 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rural Sub-Division, Thoothukudi
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years SI + fine Rs.25000

DSP convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2023/23-08-2023-Judgement-CJM_SJ, TUT, convicted the accused Tr.N.Jeyakumar, former DSP, TUT Rural Sub-division.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-002)

## Thoothukudi Police Deputy Superintendent convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Thoothukudi (2023) (T2LC-01-015)

**Record:** T2LC-01-015
**Title:** Thoothukudi Police Deputy Superintendent convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Thoothukudi (2023)
**Court:** CJM cum Special Judge, Thoothukudi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Thoothukudi Police Deputy Superintendent convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Thoothukudi (2023)
**Conviction:** 23 August 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi Rural Sub-Division
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years SI + fine Rs.50000

Former DSP convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-015)

## State (DVAC) v. Thoothukudi Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (t2-01-018)

**Record:** t2-01-018
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Thoothukudi Police Deputy Superintendent of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate / Special Court, Thoothukudi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Thoothukudi Police Deputy Superintendent of Police
**Conviction:** 23 August 2023
**Incident date:** 2011-01-01 (2011)
**Place:** Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi Rural Sub-division, Thoothukudi district
**Victims:** Thoothukudi resident
**Sentence:** 2 years SI + Rs.25,000 fine (default 2 months SI) u/s 7; 2 years + Rs.25,000 fine u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); concurrent; total fine Rs.50,000, for demand and acceptance of Rs.50,000 bribe

The DVAC press note states former DSP of Thoothukudi Rural Sub-division was convicted by the CJM/Special Court, Thoothukudi in Spl.Case No.1/2013 on 23.08.2023 for demand and acceptance of Rs.50,000 bribe, and sentenced to 2 years simple imprisonment with total fine Rs.50,000. He is the senior-most officer (DSP rank) in this batch.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2023/23-08-2023-Judgement-CJM_SJ%2C%20TUT%2C%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.N.Jeyakumar%2C%20former%20DSP%2C%20TUT%20Rural%20Sub-division.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-018)

## Special C.C.No.02/2019 (T2LC-01-003)

**Record:** T2LC-01-003
**Title:** Special C.C.No.02/2019
**Court:** CJM and Special Judge, Erode (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Special C.C.No.02/2019
**Conviction:** 28 August 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Erode, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Circle, Gopi Sub-division
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + fine Rs.50000

Inspector convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-003)

## Erode Police Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Erode (2023) (T2LC-01-014)

**Record:** T2LC-01-014
**Title:** Erode Police Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Erode (2023)
**Court:** Special Judge, Erode (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Erode Police Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Erode (2023)
**Conviction:** 28 August 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Erode, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Nambiyur PS, Erode District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + fine Rs.100000

Former Inspector convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-014)

## State (DVAC) v. Erode Police Inspector of Police (t2-01-017)

**Record:** t2-01-017
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Erode Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Court, Erode (Special Judge for PC Act cases) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Erode Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 28 August 2023
**Incident date:** 2017-05-18 (2017)
**Place:** Erode, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Police Station, Erode district
**Victims:** Erode resident
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs.1,00,000 fine u/s 7 and 13(2)/13(1)(d)

The DVAC press note (Tamil) states former Inspector of Nambiyur P.S. demanded Rs.50,000 from the complainant to remove his son's name from a criminal case, was trapped accepting it on 18.05.2017, and was convicted by the Special Court, Erode on 28.08.2023.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2023/28-08-2023-Judgement%20-%20SJ%2C%20Erode%2C%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.Vivekanandan%2C%20former%20Inspector%2C%20Nambiyur%20PS%2C%20Erode.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-017)

## Special C.C.No.12/2014 (T2LC-01-004)

**Record:** T2LC-01-004
**Title:** Special C.C.No.12/2014
**Court:** CJM and Special Judge, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Special C.C.No.12/2014
**Conviction:** 21 September 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Naducauvery Police Station
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + fine Rs.3000

SSI convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2024/https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-004)

## Special C.C.No.05/2012 (T2LC-01-005)

**Record:** T2LC-01-005
**Title:** Special C.C.No.05/2012
**Court:** CJM and Special Judge, Cuddalore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Special C.C.No.05/2012
**Conviction:** 29 September 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Sethiyathope Police Station
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + fine Rs.1000

Inspector convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2024/https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-005)

## Special C.C.No.07/2015 (T2LC-01-006)

**Record:** T2LC-01-006
**Title:** Special C.C.No.07/2015
**Court:** Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases under PC Act, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Special C.C.No.07/2015
**Conviction:** 5 February 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, F-4 Police Station, T.Kallupatti, Peraiyur Sub-Division
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + fine Rs.1500

Inspector convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/2024/https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-006)

## State (V&AC Kanyakumari, Crime No.5 of 2014) v. Kanyakumari Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A1) (t2w2-04-027)

**Record:** t2w2-04-027
**Title:** State (V&AC Kanyakumari, Crime No.5 of 2014) v. Kanyakumari Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A1)
**Court:** Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Kanyakumari, Crime No.5 of 2014) v. Kanyakumari Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A1)
**Conviction:** 15 September 2017
**Incident date:** 2014-04-26 (2014)
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police (A1), Nithiravilai Police Station, Kanyakumari District
**Victims:** Kanyakumari resident
**Sentence:** Trial court: 2 years SI + Rs.5,000 fine (6 months SI default) under each count. A2 SSI acquitted by trial court. On appeal: conviction confirmed, sentence reduced to 1 year SI per count, concurrent; fine confirmed.

The Special Judge-cum-CJM, Nagercoil on 15 September 2017 convicted Sub-Inspector of Nithiravilai police station (A1) for demanding Rs.20,000 to delete PW3 name from the FIR in Cr.No.131/2014 (a pathway-dispute assault case in which PW3 was absent from the scene), catching him in a 26 April 2014 V&AC trap near Virivilai bridge, and sentenced him to 2 years SI with fine on each count under PC Act ss.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), while acquitting SSI (A2). The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench, Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan) on 12 March 2024 partly allowed his appeal (Crl.A(MD)No.396/2017), confirming the conviction but reducing the sentence to one year SI per count concurrently.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41402009/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-04-027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-04-027)

## State (DVAC) v. Kanyakumari Police Head Constable (NATR) (t2-01-029)

**Record:** t2-01-029
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Kanyakumari Police Head Constable (NATR)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Nagercoil @ Kanyakumari (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Kanyakumari Police Head Constable (NATR)
**Conviction:** 4 April 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (NATR), Vellichanthai Police Station, Kanyakumari district
**Victims:** Kanyakumari resident
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.2,000 fine (default 2 months SI), each section separately

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases \[2024-2025\]' official list records that a Head Constable (NATR) of Vellichanthai P.S., Kanyakumari was convicted on 04.04.2024 by the CJM and Special Judge, Nagercoil in Spl.C.C.No.01/2008 and sentenced to 1 year RI with fine. The officer's name is not published in the list and no matching press note survives on the live press page; name pending (eCourts/case-file lookup).

**Sources (3):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html (no matching judgement press note found on live page))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-029)

## Coimbatore Police Head Constable convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Coimbatore (2024) (T2LC-01-013)

**Record:** T2LC-01-013
**Title:** Coimbatore Police Head Constable convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Coimbatore (2024)
**Court:** Special Judge, Coimbatore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Coimbatore Police Head Constable convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Coimbatore (2024)
**Conviction:** 27 September 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Thudiyalur PS, Coimbatore District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + fine Rs.10000

HC convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-013)

## State (DVAC) v. Coimbatore Police Head Constable (HC 262) (t2-01-016)

**Record:** t2-01-016
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Coimbatore Police Head Constable (HC 262)
**Court:** Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Coimbatore Police Head Constable (HC 262)
**Conviction:** 27 September 2024
**Incident date:** 2008-11-07 (2008)
**Place:** Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (HC 262), Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore district
**Victims:** Coimbatore man
**Sentence:** 1 year RI + Rs.5,000 fine u/s 7; 1 year RI + Rs.5,000 fine u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) (press-page link text says Rs.10,000 total)

The DVAC press note (Tamil) states HC 262 \[name withheld\] of Thudiyalur P.S. demanded Rs.4,600 (settled Rs.4,000) from complainant \[name withheld\] to release his vehicle and 'take care of the case', threatening remand otherwise, was trapped accepting Rs.4,000 at the station on 07.11.2008, and was convicted by the Special Court, Coimbatore on 27.09.2024.

**Sources (4):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2024/27-09-2024-Judgement%20-%20SJ%20Coimbatore%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Ravichandran%2C%20HC%2C%20Thudiyalur%20PS%2C%20Coimbatore.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (entry: HC Thudiyalur PS, Spl.C.C.No.47/2011))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-016)

## State (DVAC) v. Sivagangai Police Inspector of Police (t2-01-030)

**Record:** t2-01-030
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Sivagangai Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Sivagangai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Sivagangai Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 7 October 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sivagangai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Kalaiyarkovil Police Station, Sivagangai district
**Victims:** Sivagangai resident
**Sentence:** 6 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine (default 3 months SI), each section separately

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases \[2024-2025\]' official list records that an Inspector of Police of Kalaiyarkovil P.S., Sivagangai was convicted on 07.10.2024 by the CJM and Special Judge, Sivagangai in Spl.C.C.No.59/2014 and sentenced to 6 years RI with fine. The officer's name is not published in the list and no matching press note survives on the live press page; name pending (eCourts/case-file lookup).

**Sources (3):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html (no matching judgement press note found on live page))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-030)

## State (DVAC) v. Dindigul Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2-01-031)

**Record:** t2-01-031
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Dindigul Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Dindigul (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Dindigul Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 15 October 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Vilampatti Police Station, Dindigul district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine (default 3 months SI), each section separately

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases \[2024-2025\]' official list records that a Sub-Inspector of Police of Vilampatti P.S., Dindigul was convicted on 15.10.2024 by the CJM and Special Judge, Dindigul in Spl.C.C.No.09/2014 and sentenced to 2 years RI with fine. The officer's name is not published in the list and no matching press note survives on the live press page; name pending (eCourts/case-file lookup).

**Sources (3):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html (no matching judgement press note found on live page))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-031)

## State (DVAC) v. Tiruppur South Police Head Constable (t2-01-032)

**Record:** t2-01-032
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruppur South Police Head Constable
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Tiruppur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruppur South Police Head Constable
**Conviction:** 26 November 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Tiruppur South Police, Tiruppur district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs.2,000 fine (default 1 month SI), each section separately

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases \[2024-2025\]' official list records that a Head Constable of Tiruppur South Police was convicted on 26.11.2024 by the CJM and Special Judge, Tiruppur in Spl.C.C.No.28/2014 and sentenced to 3 years RI with fine. The officer's name is not published in the list and no matching press note survives on the live press page; name pending (eCourts/case-file lookup).

**Sources (3):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html (no matching judgement press note found on live page))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-032)

## Chennai Police Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Chengalpet (2025) (T2LC-01-012)

**Record:** T2LC-01-012
**Title:** Chennai Police Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Chengalpet (2025)
**Court:** CJM cum Special Judge, Chengalpet (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Chennai Police Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Chengalpet (2025)
**Conviction:** 6 January 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 of PC Act 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, S-8 Adambakkam (Crime) PS
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + fine Rs.20000

Former Inspector convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-012)

## State (DVAC) v. Greater Chennai Police Inspector of Police (t2-01-014)

**Record:** t2-01-014
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Greater Chennai Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpattu (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Greater Chennai Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 6 January 2025
**Incident date:** 2011-11-21 (2011)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, S-8 Adambakkam Police Station (Crime), Greater Chennai Police (Chengalpattu court jurisdiction)
**Victims:** Chennai resident
**Sentence:** 2 years SI + Rs.10,000 fine (default 1 month SI) u/s 7; 2 years imprisonment + Rs.10,000 fine (default 1 month SI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); concurrent

The DVAC press note states Inspector of S-8 Adambakkam (Crime) P.S. demanded Rs.5,000 monthly mamool from gas-agency owner \[name withheld\] to not harass his employees or foist false cases, was trapped accepting it at the station on 21.11.2011, and was convicted by the CJM cum Special Judge, Chengalpattu on 06.01.2025 (charge sheet filed 06.11.2013).

**Sources (3):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2025/06-01-2025-Judgement%20-%20CJM%20cum%20SJ%2C%20Chengalpet%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.P.Soundararajan%2C%20Inspector%2C%20S-8%20Adambakkam%20PS.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (entry: Inspector Adambakkam PS, Spl.C.C.No.09/2013 — lists conviction as 27.12.2024; press note 'Today (06.01.2025)' taken as authoritative))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-014)

## Chennai Police Sub-Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Chennai (2025) (T2LC-01-011)

**Record:** T2LC-01-011
**Title:** Chennai Police Sub-Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Chennai (2025)
**Court:** CJM cum Special Judge, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Chennai Police Sub-Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Chennai (2025)
**Conviction:** 21 January 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Velachery PS
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years RI + fine Rs.100000

SI convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (5):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (entry: SI Velachery PS, Spl.C.C.No.05/2014)); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2025/21-01-2025-Judgement%20-%20CJM%20cum%20SJ%2C%20Chennai%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tmt.%20Kalaiselvi%2C%20SI%2C%20Velachery%20PS.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-011)

## Kanniyakumari Police Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Nagarcoil (2025) (T2LC-01-010)

**Record:** T2LC-01-010
**Title:** Kanniyakumari Police Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Nagarcoil (2025)
**Court:** CJM cum Special Judge, Nagarcoil (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Kanniyakumari Police Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Nagarcoil (2025)
**Conviction:** 28 January 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kanniyakumari, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Vadasary PS, Nagarcoil
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + fine Rs.20000

Former Inspector convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-010)

## State (DVAC) v. Kanyakumari Police Inspector of Police (t2-01-012)

**Record:** t2-01-012
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Kanyakumari Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Nagercoil (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Kanyakumari Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 28 January 2025
**Incident date:** 2013-06-28 (2013)
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Vadasary Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari district
**Victims:** Kanyakumari resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine (default 6 months SI) u/s 7; 3 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine (default 6 months SI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); concurrent

The DVAC press note states Inspector of Vadasary P.S. demanded Rs.50,000 from CD-shop proprietor \[name withheld\], was trapped accepting it on 28.06.2013, and was convicted by the CJM cum Special Judge, Nagercoil on 28.01.2025.

**Sources (3):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2025/28-01-2025-Judgement%20-%20CJM%20cum%20SJ%2C%20Nagarcoil%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.Rajasekaran%2C%20former%20Inspector%2C%20Vadasary%20PS.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (entry: Inspector Vadasery PS, Spl.C.C.No.03/2014))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-012)

## Chennai Police Special Sub-Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2025) (T2LC-01-009)

**Record:** T2LC-01-009
**Title:** Chennai Police Special Sub-Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2025)
**Court:** Special Judge, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Chennai Police Special Sub-Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2025)
**Conviction:** 3 February 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police, H1 PS, Chennai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years RI + fine Rs.100000

Former SSI convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-009)

## State (DVAC) v. Greater Chennai Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police (t2-01-015)

**Record:** t2-01-015
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Greater Chennai Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Court for PC Act Cases, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Greater Chennai Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 3 February 2025
**Incident date:** 2011-02-04 (2011)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police, H1 Washermenpet (Crime) Police Station, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai
**Victims:** Chennai resident
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs.50,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 7; 5 years RI + Rs.50,000 fine (default 6 months SI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); concurrent (press note: 'totally 5 years RI with fine Rs.1,00,000')

The DVAC press note states SSI of H1 \[name withheld\] Crime P.S. demanded Rs.1,500 from complainant \[name withheld\] for returning his blank cheque leaf and unsigned stamp paper after a money-lender enquiry, was trapped accepting it on 04.02.2011, and was convicted by the Special Court for PC Act Cases, Chennai on 03.02.2025.

**Sources (4):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2025/03-02-2025-Judgement%20-%20SJ%2C%20Chennai%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.Jayakumar%2C%20SSI%2C%20H1%20PS%2CChennai.pdf); [newsad.in](https://newsad.in/two-policemen-arrested-in-connection-with-an-extortion-case/); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (entry: SSI H1 Washermanpet Crime PS, Spl.C.C.No.29/2013))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-015)

## Kancheepuram Police Sub-Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM, Kancheepuram (2025) (T2LC-01-008)

**Record:** T2LC-01-008
**Title:** Kancheepuram Police Sub-Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM, Kancheepuram (2025)
**Court:** CJM, Kancheepuram (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Kancheepuram Police Sub-Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM, Kancheepuram (2025)
**Conviction:** 21 February 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic, Kancheepuram District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + fine Rs.20000

SI convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-008)

## State (DVAC) v. Kancheepuram Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2-01-010)

**Record:** t2-01-010
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Kancheepuram Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Kancheepuram (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Kancheepuram Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 21 February 2025
**Incident date:** 2009-11-26 (2009)
**Place:** Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic, Kancheepuram district
**Victims:** Kancheepuram resident
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine u/s 7; 3 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); concurrent. (Press-page link text says Rs.20,000 total.)

The DVAC press note states SI of Traffic, Kancheepuram seized complainant \[name withheld\]'s documents for two-wheeler overspeeding and demanded Rs.2,000 for not registering a case, was trapped accepting it on 26.11.2009, and was convicted by the CJM cum Special Judge, Kancheepuram on 21.02.2025.

**Sources (3):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2025/21-02-2025-Judgement%20-%20CJM%2C%20Kancheepuram%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.Thangaraj%2C%20SI%2C%20Traffic%2C%20Kancheepuram.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (entry: SI Traffic Kancheepuram, Spl.C.C.No.36/2024))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-010)

## State (DVAC) v. Thanjavur Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2-01-033)

**Record:** t2-01-033
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Thanjavur Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Thanjavur Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 24 February 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Melattur Police Station, Thanjavur district
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs.8,000 fine u/s 7; 1 year RI + Rs.4,000 fine u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); default 3 months SI

The DVAC 'Convicted Cases \[2024-2025\]' official list records that a Sub-Inspector of Police of Melattur P.S., Thanjavur was convicted on 24.02.2025 by the CJM and Special Judge, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam in Spl.C.C.No.29/2014. The officer's name is not published in the list and no matching press note survives on the live press page; name pending (eCourts/case-file lookup).

**Sources (3):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html (no matching judgement press note found on live page))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-033)

## Cuddalore Police Special Sub-Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Cuddalore (2025) (T2LC-01-007)

**Record:** T2LC-01-007
**Title:** Cuddalore Police Special Sub-Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Cuddalore (2025)
**Court:** CJM cum Special Judge, Cuddalore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Cuddalore Police Special Sub-Inspector convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Cuddalore (2025)
**Conviction:** 1 March 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Killai PS, Cuddalore District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years SI + fine Rs.20000

SSI convicted for demanding and accepting bribe.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open T2LC-01-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/T2LC-01-007)

## State (DVAC) v. Cuddalore Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police (t2-01-009)

**Record:** t2-01-009
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Cuddalore Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Cuddalore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Cuddalore Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 1 March 2025
**Incident date:** 2013-02-27 (2013)
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Killai Police Station, Cuddalore district
**Victims:** Cuddalore man, age 54
**Sentence:** 2 years SI + Rs.5,000 fine u/s 7; 2 years SI + Rs.5,000 fine u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); concurrent; default 6 months SI. (Press-page link text says Rs.20,000 total; PDF and convicted-cases list say Rs.5,000 per count.)

The DVAC press note (Tamil) states SSI of Killai P.S. demanded Rs.2,500 from complainant \[name withheld\] to release an accident vehicle from the station, was caught accepting it on 27.02.2013, and was convicted by the CJM cum Special Judge, Cuddalore on 01.03.2025 (listed as Spl.C.C.No.03/2014 in the convicted-cases list).

**Sources (3):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2025/01-03-2025-Judgement%20-%20CJM%20cum%20SJ%20Cuddalore%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.S.Udhayakumar%2C%20SSI%2C%20Killai%20PS%2C%20Cuddalore.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/convictions.html (entry: SSI Killai PS, Spl.C.C.No.03/2014))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-009)

## State v. Thoothukudi Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (Inspector at time) and others (custodial death, Thalamuthu Nagar PS, 1999) (t2-17-012)

**Record:** t2-17-012
**Title:** State v. Thoothukudi Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (Inspector at time) and others (custodial death, Thalamuthu Nagar PS, 1999)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Court, Thoothukudi district (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Thoothukudi Police Deputy Superintendent of Police (Inspector at time) and others (custodial death, Thalamuthu Nagar PS, 1999)
**Conviction:** 5 April 2025
**Incident date:** 1999-09-01 (1999)
**Place:** Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC (sections not specified in accessed reports)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Deputy Superintendent of Police (Inspector at time), Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station, Thoothukudi; various, Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station, Thoothukudi
**Victims:** Thoothukudi man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment to 9 convicts; 2 of 11 accused acquitted

The Thoothukudi Additional Sessions Court sentenced nine police personnel, including a DSP who was inspector at the time, to life imprisonment for the 1999 custodial death of a man at Thalamuthu Nagar police station, acquitting two of eleven accused. The verdict came 26 years after the death, which an RDO enquiry in October 1999 had examined. The case was tried as Sessions Case No. 223 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC. In November 2025 the Supreme Court suspended the life sentence of one convict, a police officer at the time, pending his appeal in the Madras High Court.

**Sources (4):** [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/pdf_upload/s-ramakrishnan-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-thoothukudi-district-tamil-nadu-2096722.pdf); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/latest-news-tn-court-sentences-dsp-8-others-to-life-imprisonment-in-custodial-death-case-6761239.html); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/supreme-court-judgments/sc-suspends-life-term-in-1999-custodial-death-case-flags-conflicting-evidence-1543923); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3335909-court-hands-life-sentences-in-1999-custodial-death-case)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-17-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-17-012)

## State (DVAC) v. Kancheepuram Police Head Constable (HC 1210) (t2-01-008)

**Record:** t2-01-008
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Kancheepuram Police Head Constable (HC 1210)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kancheepuram (Special Court for PC Act cases) (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Kancheepuram Police Head Constable (HC 1210)
**Conviction:** 14 May 2025
**Incident date:** 2010-02-12 (2010)
**Place:** Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (HC 1210), Kancheepuram district (sand-lorry checkpoint duty, Chennai–Bengaluru highway)
**Victims:** Kancheepuram man
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs.20,000 fine

The DVAC press note (Tamil) states HC 1210 \[name withheld\], on SSI 's instructions, accepted Rs.3,000 from lorry-owner \[name withheld\] on 12.02.2010 as monthly mamool (Rs.1,000 per sand lorry); both were arrested, Munusamy died during trial, and \[name withheld\] was convicted by the CJM Court, Kancheepuram on 14.05.2025.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2025/14-05-2025-Judgement%20-%20CJM%2C%20KPM%20convicted%20the%20accused%20Tr.Mathiazhagan%2C%20HC%2C%20KPM.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-008)

## State (DV&AC Thanjavur, Cr.No.5 of 2002) v. Thanjavur Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A2) (t2w3-30-001)

**Record:** t2w3-30-001
**Title:** State (DV&AC Thanjavur, Cr.No.5 of 2002) v. Thanjavur Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A2)
**Court:** Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DV&AC Thanjavur, Cr.No.5 of 2002) v. Thanjavur Police Sub-Inspector of Police (A2)
**Conviction:** 22 December 2017
**Incident date:** 2002-06-20 (2002)
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7 r/w IPC s.34; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) r/w IPC s.34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police (A2), CS-CID
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI on each count (concurrent), reduced to 1 year RI on appeal

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) records that Sub-Inspector of the CS-CID, with two colleagues, demanded and accepted a Rs.10,000 bribe from a gas-agency owner in June 2002, proved by a DV&AC trap with phenolphthalein-positive hands. The Special Judge-cum-CJM, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam convicted him on 22.12.2017 under PC Act sections 7 and 13(1)(d). On 15.05.2025 the High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the 2-year RI term to 1 year.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43207994/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-30-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-30-001)

## State (DV&AC Thanjavur, Cr.No.5 of 2002) v. Thanjavur Police Head Constable (A3) (t2w3-30-002)

**Record:** t2w3-30-002
**Title:** State (DV&AC Thanjavur, Cr.No.5 of 2002) v. Thanjavur Police Head Constable (A3)
**Court:** Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DV&AC Thanjavur, Cr.No.5 of 2002) v. Thanjavur Police Head Constable (A3)
**Conviction:** 22 December 2017
**Incident date:** 2002-06-20 (2002)
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7 r/w IPC s.34; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) r/w IPC s.34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (A3), CS-CID
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years RI on each count (concurrent), reduced to 1 year RI on appeal

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) records that Head Constable of the CS-CID received the Rs.10,000 bribe amount at the direction of his superior officers in the June 2002 trap, with phenolphthalein-positive hands. The Special Judge-cum-CJM, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam convicted him on 22.12.2017 under PC Act sections 7 and 13(1)(d). On 15.05.2025 the High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the 2-year RI term to 1 year.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43207994/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-30-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-30-002)

## State (V&AC Madurai) v. Madurai Police Training Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w3-30-003)

**Record:** t2w3-30-003
**Title:** State (V&AC Madurai) v. Madurai Police Training Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Judge for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (V&AC Madurai) v. Madurai Police Training Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 19 December 2018
**Incident date:** 2006-08-19 (2006)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Training Sub-Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Madurai
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years SI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13) on appeal modified to 1 year RI on each count, concurrent

The Madras High Court records that Training Sub-Inspector of Othakadai Police Station demanded Rs.3,000 from a complainant in August 2006 to close a complaint enquiry, reiterated the demand, and was caught in a V&AC trap with phenolphthalein-positive hands. The Special Judge for PC Act Cases, Madurai convicted him on 19.12.2018 under PC Act sections 7 and 13(1)(d). On 15.05.2025 the High Court confirmed the conviction, reducing the 2-year terms to 1 year RI each.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4202336/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-30-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-30-003)

## State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police (t2-01-007)

**Record:** t2-01-007
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 27 June 2025
**Incident date:** 2008-12-17 (2008)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, XIII Team, Central Crime Branch, Chennai Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs.1,00,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 7; 5 years RI + Rs.1,00,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); concurrent

The DVAC press note states Inspector of CCB Chennai demanded Rs.2,00,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] to drop action and close CCB cases as civil, reiterated the demand on 17.12.2008 directing the money be handed to HC, and was convicted by the Special Court for PC Act cases, Chennai on 27.06.2025 (charge sheet filed 05.03.2010). Co-accused HC was convicted separately on 30.06.2025.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2025/27-06-2025-Judgement%20-%20Tr.Ruskin%2C%20formerly%20Inspector%20of%20Police%2C%20CCB%2C%20Chennai.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-007)

## State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Head Constable (HC 7620) (t2-01-006)

**Record:** t2-01-006
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Head Constable (HC 7620)
**Court:** Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Chennai Police Head Constable (HC 7620)
**Conviction:** 30 June 2025
**Incident date:** 2008-12-17 (2008)
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (HC 7620), XIII Team, Central Crime Branch, Chennai Police
**Victims:** Chennai resident
**Sentence:** 4 years RI + Rs.1,00,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 7; 5 years RI + Rs.1,00,000 fine (default 3 months SI) u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); concurrent

The DVAC press note states HC 7620 \[name withheld\] of CCB Chennai accepted Rs.2,00,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] on 17.12.2008 at Inspector's direction, as bribe to drop action and close CCB cases as civil in nature, and was convicted by the Special Court for PC Act cases, Chennai on 30.06.2025 (charge sheet filed 05.03.2010). Co-accused Inspector D.\[name withheld\] was convicted separately on 27.06.2025.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2025/30-06-2025-Judgement%20-%20Tr.S.Mohan%2C%20HC%207620%20CCB%2C%20Chennai.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-006)

## State (CB-CID) v. Madurai Police Inspector of Police (A-1) and others (t2w2-14-006)

**Record:** t2w2-14-006
**Title:** State (CB-CID) v. Madurai Police Inspector of Police (A-1) and others
**Court:** Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai (IV ADJ per order body; SC No. 289 of 2021) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State (CB-CID) v. Madurai Police Inspector of Police (A-1) and others
**Conviction:** 26 September 2025
**Incident date:** 2019-01-13 (2019)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 343; IPC 304 Part II
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police (A-1), Crime Branch, S.S. Colony Police Station, Madurai; Special Sub-Inspector of Police (A-2; name-rank mapping follows petition order), Crime Branch, S.S. Colony Police Station, Madurai; Head Constable (A-3; name-rank mapping follows petition order), Crime Branch, S.S. Colony Police Station, Madurai; Police Constable Grade-I (A-4; name-rank mapping follows petition order), Crime Branch, S.S. Colony Police Station, Madurai
**Victims:** Madurai boy, age 17
**Sentence:** 10 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine each under section 304(ii) and 1 year RI + Rs 2,000 fine each under section 343 (11 years total as reported)

The Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai (SC No. 289 of 2021, CB-CID Crime No. 2/2019) on 26 September 2025 convicted an inspector, a special sub-inspector, a head constable and a grade-I constable of the S.\[name withheld\] Crime Branch for illegally detaining \[name withheld\] theft suspect \[name withheld\] across three stations from 13 to 16 January 2019 and torturing him so brutally that he died of renal injuries and cardiopulmonary arrest on 24 January 2019, with 25 ante-mortem contusions found at the post-mortem conducted after exhumation. Each was sentenced to 10 years RI under section 304(ii) plus one year under section 343. The four names (\[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]) and ranks are as arrays in the Madras High Court suspension order of 13 July 2026 (Justice B. Pugalendhi), which notes appeals stand admitted; the order body says IV ADJ Court while the petition prayer says V ADJ Court.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159422649/); [inshorts.com](https://inshorts.com/en/news/4-cops-sentenced-to-11-yrs-in-jail-for-custodial-death-in-madurai-1758887754393)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-14-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-14-006)

## State (DVAC) v. Tirunelveli Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police (t2-01-005)

**Record:** t2-01-005
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Tirunelveli Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Tirunelveli Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 19 December 2025
**Incident date:** 2014-08-08 (2014)
**Place:** Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalakadu Police Station, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli district
**Victims:** Tirunelveli resident
**Sentence:** 3 years RI u/s 7 and 3 years RI u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), concurrent, + Rs.10,000 fine (paid immediately)

The DVAC press note (Tamil) states SSI of \[name withheld\]S. demanded Rs.3,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] for a CSR receipt and Not-Traceable certificate for his lost driving licence, was caught red-handed on 08.08.2014 in Cr.No.08/2014, and was convicted in Spl.C.C.No.06/2015 by the Special Court, Tirunelveli (Judge Usuppaiah) on 19.12.2025.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2025/19-12-2025-Judgement%20-%20Tr.Velladurai%2C%20SI%2C%20Kalakadu%20PS%2C%20Nanguneri%2C%20Tirunelveli%20Dist.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-005)

## CBI v. Tamil Nadu Police Inspector (then SHO) (t2-13-003)

**Record:** t2-13-003
**Title:** CBI v. Tamil Nadu Police Inspector (then SHO)
**Court:** First Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai (Judge G. Muthukumaran) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Tamil Nadu Police Inspector (then SHO)
**Conviction:** 23 March 2026
**Incident date:** 2020-06-19 (2020)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.342 (wrongful confinement); IPC s.195 (false evidence); IPC s.211 (false charge); IPC s.218 (public servant framing incorrect record); IPC s.302 (murder) read with ss.109 and 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector (then SHO), PS Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu Police; Sub-Inspector, PS Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu Police; Sub-Inspector, PS Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu Police; Head Constable, PS Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu Police; Head Constable, PS Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu Police; Police Constable, PS Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu Police; Police Constable, PS Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu Police; Police Constable, PS Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu Police; Police Constable, PS Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu Police
**Victims:** Madurai man, age 59; Madurai man, age 31
**Sentence:** Death penalty to all nine (quantum pronounced 06.04.2026; convicted of murder and destruction of evidence earlier)

The I Additional District Judge, Madurai awarded the death penalty to nine Sathankulam police personnel, holding the custodial torture and deaths of father and son \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] a rarest-of-the-rare case of abuse of authority. The court found the duo were wrongfully confined on 19.06.2020 and brutally tortured on the night of 19-20 June 2020, dying on 22-23 June 2020. The CBI, which took over the case from Tamil Nadu Police, chargesheeted all nine within 90 days and examined 52 witnesses at trial. Conviction date precedes the 06.04.2026 sentencing date per the PR; death sentence is subject to mandatory High Court confirmation (status unverified).

**Sources (11):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NzY3NQ==); [bhaskarenglish.in](https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/national/news/madurai-court-custodial-death-case-rarest-rare-father-son-died-9-policemen-sentenced-death-tamil-nad-137629763.html); [lawstreet.co](https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/rarest-of-rare-madurai-court-awards-death-sentence-to-9-cops-in-sathankulam-custodial-death-case); [timesofindia.indiatimes.com](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/madurai/sathankulam-custodial-deaths-nine-cops-sentenced-to-death/articleshow/130061312.cms); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/sathankulam-custodial-deaths-madurai-court-convicts-9-police-personnel-for-murder-of-father-son-duo); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/articles/nine-policemen-sentenced-death-sathankulam-custodial-killings-530281); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/sathankulam-custodial-death-madurai-court-nine-police-officers-found-guilty-527520); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/sathankulam-custodial-death-nine-police-officers-sentenced-to-death-529197); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/07/sathankulam-judgment-666290.pdf); [scconline.com](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/04/08/death-penalty-to-9-police-officials-custodial-death-torture/); [thehindubusinessline.com](https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/sathankulam-custodial-deaths-court-awards-death-penalty-to-9-police-personnel/article70831092.ece)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-003)

## State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police and others (t2-01-004)

**Record:** t2-01-004
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police and others
**Court:** Special Court for PC Act Cases, Tiruchirappalli (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Special Sub-Inspector of Police and others
**Conviction:** 29 April 2026
**Incident date:** 2009-08-01 (2009)
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Fort (Kottai) Crime Police Station, Tiruchirappalli City
**Victims:** Tiruchirappalli resident
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs.20,000 fine

The DVAC press note (Tamil) states SSI of Fort Crime P.S., \[name withheld\] demanded Rs.1,500 from complainant \[name withheld\] to register an FIR on his shop break-in complaint, was trapped accepting it on 01.08.2009, and was convicted and sentenced by the Special Court, \[name withheld\] on 29.04.2026.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2026/29-04-2026-Judgement%20-%20Tr.Muthukumar%2C%20SSI%2C%20Kottai%20P.S.%2C%20Trichy%20District.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-004)

## State (DVAC) v. Salem Police Inspector of Police and others (t2-01-003)

**Record:** t2-01-003
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Salem Police Inspector of Police and others
**Court:** Special Court for cases under PC Act, Salem (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Salem Police Inspector of Police and others
**Conviction:** 30 June 2026
**Incident date:** 2018-08-10 (2018)
**Place:** Salem, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Kolathur Police Station, Salem district; Head Constable, Kolathur Police Station, Salem district
**Victims:** Salem resident
**Sentence:** Each: 3 years RI + Rs.5,000 fine

The DVAC press note (Tamil) states Inspector and Head Constable of Kolathur P.S., Salem demanded Rs.5,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] to release his two-wheeler without registering a case, were trapped accepting it on 10.08.2018, and after trial with 36 witnesses were both convicted and sentenced by the Special Court for PC Act cases, Salem on 30.06.2026.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2026/30-06-2026-Judgement%20-%20Tr.Raveendran%2C%20Inspr%20and%20Tr.Elango%2C%20HC%2C%20Kolathur%20P.S.%2C%20Salem.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-003)

## State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Sub-Inspector of Police and others (t2-01-002)

**Record:** t2-01-002
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Sub-Inspector of Police and others
**Court:** Special Court for PC Act Cases, Tiruchirappalli (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Tiruchirappalli Police Sub-Inspector of Police and others
**Conviction:** 23 July 2026
**Incident date:** 2009-10-29 (2009)
**Place:** Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station, Tiruchirappalli district
**Victims:** Tiruchirappalli resident
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs.10,000 fine

The DVAC press note states \[name withheld\], Sub-Inspector of Police, Manapparai P.S., demanded Rs.1,500 from complainant, a Tiruchirappalli resident, for releasing him on bail and sending his motorcycle for MV inspection in an accident case, was trapped accepting it on 29.10.2009, and was convicted by the Special Court for PC Act Cases, \[name withheld\] on 23.07.2026.

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2026/23-07-2026-Judgement%20-%20Tmt.Rajathi%2C%20Sub-Inspector%2C%20Manapparai%20Police%20Station%2C%20Trichy%20District.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-002)

## State (DVAC) v. Perambalur Police Inspector of Police (t2-01-001)

**Record:** t2-01-001
**Title:** State (DVAC) v. Perambalur Police Inspector of Police
**Court:** Principal District Judge Court, Perambalur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State (DVAC) v. Perambalur Police Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 28 August 2026
**Incident date:** 2008-08-26 (2008)
**Place:** Perambalur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)(i)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station (at offence); NSD Wing, Kanyakumari/Tirunelveli (at conviction)
**Victims:** Perambalur resident
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + Rs.1,000 fine u/s 7; 2 years RI + Rs.1,000 fine u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)(i); concurrent

The DVAC press note states \[name withheld\], Inspector of Police, Perambalur P.S., demanded Rs.7,000 from lawyer a Perambalur resident to lay a charge sheet expeditiously in Perambalur Cr.No.494/2008, was trapped accepting the bribe on 26.08.2008, and was convicted and sentenced by the Principal District Judge, Perambalur on 28.08.2026. (Note: the English page of the PDF has a typo '28.08.2028' in one line; filename, header and link text confirm 28.08.2026.)

**Sources (2):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/pdf/Press_Release/2026/28-08-2026-Judgement%20-%20Press%20Release-73%20-%20Tr.Joseph%20Cyril%2C%20Inspr%2C%20Perambalur%20P.S.%20now%20NSD%20Wing%2C%20Kanyakumari.pdf); [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://www.dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-01-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-01-001)

## ACB trap October 1989 (State vs \[name withheld\]; Rs.500 bribe, Shamshabad PS); Crl.A.No.657 of 1993, AP High Court, decided 08-12-1997 (t2w3-32-008)

**Record:** t2w3-32-008
**Title:** ACB trap October 1989 (State vs \[name withheld\]; Rs.500 bribe, Shamshabad PS); Crl.A.No.657 of 1993, AP High Court, decided 08-12-1997
**Court:** Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** ACB trap October 1989 (State vs \[name withheld\]; Rs.500 bribe, Shamshabad PS); Crl.A.No.657 of 1993, AP High Court, decided 08-12-1997
**Conviction:** 8 December 1997
**Incident date:** 1989-10-08 (1989)
**Place:** Ranga Reddy, Telangana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.11; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Detective Sub-Inspector, Shamshabad Police Station, Rangareddy district (undivided AP; now Telangana)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment + Rs.1,000 fine on each count, sentences concurrent (6 months simple imprisonment in default per count)

Per the AP High Court judgment of 08-12-1997, Detective Sub-Inspector of Shamshabad police station (Rangareddy district) was convicted by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad for demanding Rs.500 as bribe (September–October 1989) from a workshop owner as the price of not foisting a stolen-property (electric motors) criminal case on him; the complainant had already handed over two old electric motors on 03-10-1989 before reporting to the ACB DSP. The trial court imposed one year's RI plus Rs.1,000 fine on each count under PC Act ss.7, 11 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), concurrent; the High Court found no cause to interfere, dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/721992/ka-hassan-vs-state-of-ap/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1754715/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-32-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-32-008)

## Sessions Case No.376 of 2003 (State vs Excise personnel, P&E Station Mancherial; deceased \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.1403, Revenue (Vigilance-V), 02-12-2010 (t2w3-32-001)

**Record:** t2w3-32-001
**Title:** Sessions Case No.376 of 2003 (State vs Excise personnel, P&E Station Mancherial; deceased \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.1403, Revenue (Vigilance-V), 02-12-2010
**Court:** III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Asifabad (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Case No.376 of 2003 (State vs Excise personnel, P&E Station Mancherial; deceased \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.1403, Revenue (Vigilance-V), 02-12-2010
**Conviction:** 6 July 2006
**Incident date:** 1997-10-12 (1997)
**Place:** Mancherial, Telangana
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II r/w IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Prohibition & Excise Station, Mancherial (Adilabad district, undivided AP; now Telangana)
**Victims:** Mancherial man
**Sentence:** Not stated in accessed GO extract (A-1 to A-12 convicted under Section 235(2) CrPC; pension/gratuity of this officer withheld permanently)

Per G.O.Ms.No.1403 dated 02-12-2010, the III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Asifabad convicted accused A-1 to A-12 on 06-07-2006 in Sessions Case No.376 of 2003 under IPC 304 Part-II r/w 34 for the custodial death of a Mancherial man, who was picked up by Prohibition & Excise personnel of Mancherial station on 08-10-1997, found unconscious in custody on 12-10-1997 and died on 18-10-1997. \[name withheld\], Prohibition & Excise Head Constable of Mancherial (retired 31-08-2004; Accused Officer-3 per the GO body), is the officer named in this order, which imposed permanent withholding of full pension and gratuity. Sentence and fine are not stated in the accessed extract.

**Sources (1):** [archive.org](https://archive.org/download/in.gov.andhra.goir.2010-12-02.E-148764/E-148764.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-32-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-32-001)

## C.C.No.52/2003 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.306, Home (SC.A), 20-11-2008 (t2-05-002)

**Record:** t2-05-002
**Title:** C.C.No.52/2003 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.306, Home (SC.A), 20-11-2008
**Court:** Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.52/2003 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.306, Home (SC.A), 20-11-2008
**Conviction:** 1 December 2007
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karimnagar, Telangana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Central Crime Station, Karimnagar
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Not stated

The Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, convicted Sub-Inspector of Central Crime Station, Karimnagar, in C.C.No.52/2003 vide judgment dated 01.12.2007. Consequent on that conviction, the Government of Andhra Pradesh dismissed him from service with immediate effect under Rule 25(i), APCS (CC&A) Rules (G.O.Ms.No.306, Home (SC.A), 20-11-2008, notified in AP Gazette No.669 dated 24-11-2008). The sentence and sections are not stated in the gazette notification.

**Sources (2):** [ia801005.us.archive.org](https://ia801005.us.archive.org/12/items/in.gazette.andhra.2008-11-24.669_PARTI/669_PARTI.pdf); [archive.org](https://archive.org/details/in.gazette.andhra.2008-11-24.669_PARTI)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-05-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-05-002)

## C.C.No.18 of 2004 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.45, Home (SC.A), 23-01-2009 (t2-05-004)

**Record:** t2-05-004
**Title:** C.C.No.18 of 2004 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.45, Home (SC.A), 23-01-2009
**Court:** Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.18 of 2004 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.45, Home (SC.A), 23-01-2009
**Conviction:** 29 October 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, Telangana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Constable (No.1245), Choutuppal Police Station, Nalgonda
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Not stated

The Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, convicted Police Constable1245 \[name withheld\] of Choutuppal Police Station, Nalgonda district, in C.C.No.18 of 2004 vide judgment dated 29.10.2008. Consequent on that conviction, the Government dismissed him from service with immediate effect (G.O.Ms.No.45, Home (SC.A), 23-01-2009, notified in AP Gazette No.50 dated 28-01-2009). The sentence and sections are not stated in the gazette notification.

**Sources (2):** [dn790000.ca.archive.org](https://dn790000.ca.archive.org/0/items/in.gazette.andhra.2009-01-28.50_PARTI/50_PARTI.pdf); [archive.org](https://archive.org/details/in.gazette.andhra.2009-01-28.50_PARTI)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-05-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-05-004)

## C.C.No.32 of 2003 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.44, Home (SC.A), 23-01-2009 (t2-05-003)

**Record:** t2-05-003
**Title:** C.C.No.32 of 2003 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.44, Home (SC.A), 23-01-2009
**Court:** Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.32 of 2003 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Ms.No.44, Home (SC.A), 23-01-2009
**Conviction:** 18 November 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sangareddy, Telangana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Sankarampet Police Station, Medak
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Not stated

The Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, convicted Sub-Inspector of Sankarampet Police Station, Medak district, in C.C.No.32 of 2003 vide judgment dated 18.11.2008. Consequent on that conviction, the Government dismissed him from service with immediate effect (G.O.Ms.No.44, Home (SC.A), 23-01-2009, notified in AP Gazette No.50 dated 28-01-2009). The sentence and sections are not stated in the gazette notification.

**Sources (2):** [dn790000.ca.archive.org](https://dn790000.ca.archive.org/0/items/in.gazette.andhra.2009-01-28.50_PARTI/50_PARTI.pdf); [archive.org](https://archive.org/details/in.gazette.andhra.2009-01-28.50_PARTI)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-05-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-05-003)

## C.C.No.133/2015 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Rt.No.479, Home (Spl), 03-04-2018 (t2-05-005)

**Record:** t2-05-005
**Title:** C.C.No.133/2015 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Rt.No.479, Home (Spl), 03-04-2018
**Court:** Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Karimnagar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.133/2015 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); G.O.Rt.No.479, Home (Spl), 03-04-2018
**Conviction:** 15 February 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated (2009)
**Place:** Nizamabad, Telangana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Bibipet Police Station, Bhiknoor Circle, Nizamabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + Rs.5,000 fine (3 months SI in default) u/s 7; RI 1 year + Rs.5,000 fine u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2); concurrent

The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Karimnagar, convicted Assistant Sub-Inspector of Bibipet Police Station, Bhiknoor Circle, Nizamabad (ACB case RCT-NZB/2009), in C.C.No.133/2015 vide judgment dated 15.02.2018 under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count with Rs.5,000 fine on each count, sentences concurrent. As he had retired on 31.03.2011, the Government of Telangana ordered withholding of his entire pension and gratuity permanently (G.O.Rt.No.479, Home (Spl), 03-04-2018).

**Sources (2):** [ia800506.us.archive.org](https://ia800506.us.archive.org/10/items/in.gov.telangana.goir.2018-04-03.home-routine-479/home-routine-479.pdf); [archive.org](https://archive.org/details/in.gov.telangana.goir.2018-04-03.home-routine-479)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-05-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-05-005)

## State ACB vs Karimnagar Police Circle Inspector of Police (t2w3-09-005)

**Record:** t2w3-09-005
**Title:** State ACB vs Karimnagar Police Circle Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Judge for ACB Cases, Karimnagar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State ACB vs Karimnagar Police Circle Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 22 February 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karimnagar, Telangana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Circle Inspector of Police, Formerly Choppadandi, Karimnagar
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** RI 2 years + Rs.5,000 fine u/s 7; RI 2 years + Rs.5,000 fine u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2); concurrent (3 months SI in default on each)

The Special Judge for ACB Cases, Karimnagar, on 22.02.2018 convicted Circle Inspector of Police \[name withheld\] (formerly of Choppadandi, Karimnagar) in an ACB trap case, sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment with Rs.5,000 fine on each count under s.7 and s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, sentences concurrent, as announced in the Telangana ACB's official news bulletin.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180317050921/http://www.acb.telangana.gov.in/ACB/Default.aspx)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-09-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-09-005)

## C.C.No.22 of 2011 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); Crl.A.No.1481 of 2018; W.P.No.18600 of 2018 (t2w3-09-003)

**Record:** t2w3-09-003
**Title:** C.C.No.22 of 2011 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); Crl.A.No.1481 of 2018; W.P.No.18600 of 2018
**Court:** Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.22 of 2011 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); Crl.A.No.1481 of 2018; W.P.No.18600 of 2018
**Conviction:** 24 April 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Hyderabad, Telangana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Traffic Cell Compounding Booth, Nampally, Hyderabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** RI 2 years + Rs.5,000 fine u/s 7; RI 2 years + Rs.5,000 fine u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2); concurrent (3 months SI in default on each)

The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, on 24.04.2018 convicted Women Sub-Inspector (formerly of the Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad; ACB case C.C.No.22 of 2011) in a trap case, sentencing her to two years' rigorous imprisonment with Rs.5,000 fine on each count under s.7 and s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, sentences concurrent, as announced in the Telangana ACB's official news bulletin. The Telangana High Court suspended the sentence on 02.05.2018 (Crl.A.No.1481 of 2018); she also challenged her dismissal from service (W.P.No.18600 of 2018, decided 02.07.2018).

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181912505/); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20190810110411/http://www.acb.telangana.gov.in/ACB/Default.aspx)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-09-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-09-003)

## C.C.No.6 of 2001 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\] & Anr); Crl.A.No.799 of 2006 (t2w2-06-008)

**Record:** t2w2-06-008
**Title:** C.C.No.6 of 2001 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\] & Anr); Crl.A.No.799 of 2006
**Court:** Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.6 of 2001 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\] & Anr); Crl.A.No.799 of 2006
**Conviction:** 27 September 2018
**Incident date:** 2000-03-18 (2000)
**Place:** Hyderabad, Telangana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)(i)(ii) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Balanagar Police Station, Hyderabad
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Trial: RI 2 years + Rs.2,000 fine (6 months SI in default); on appeal reduced to RI 1 year, fine undisturbed

The Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, convicted Assistant Sub-Inspector of Balanagar Police Station in C.C.No.6 of 2001 vide judgment dated 22.06.2006, for detaining a scrap-shop owner overnight on 18-19.03.2000 and demanding Rs.50,000 (accepting Rs.20,000) to release him without booking a criminal case. He was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with Rs.2,000 fine under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988; co-accused-Inspector (A-2) was acquitted at trial. On appeal (Crl.A.No.799 of 2006, decided 27.09.2018), the High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year's RI considering the longevity of the case.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63079089/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-06-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-06-008)

## C.C.No.18 of 2005 (State ACB vs Domalapally Ravinder); Crl.A.No.1507 of 2009 (t2w2-06-010)

**Record:** t2w2-06-010
**Title:** C.C.No.18 of 2005 (State ACB vs Domalapally Ravinder); Crl.A.No.1507 of 2009
**Court:** Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.18 of 2005 (State ACB vs Domalapally Ravinder); Crl.A.No.1507 of 2009
**Conviction:** 12 December 2018
**Incident date:** 2004-02-25 (2004)
**Place:** Hyderabad, Telangana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Domalapally Ravinder (Sub-Inspector)
**Victims:** Hyderabad man
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + Rs.1,000 fine (1 month SI/RI in default) on each count

The Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, convicted Sub-Inspector Domalapally Ravinder of Karkhana Police Station, Secunderabad, in C.C.No.18 of 2005 vide judgment dated 15.10.2009, for demanding and accepting Rs.1,000 on 25.02.2004 for issuing a police certificate for the complainant's lost LLB degree and transfer certificate. He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with Rs.1,000 fine on each count under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. On appeal (Crl.A.No.1507 of 2009, decided 12.12.2018), the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence. (One witness inconsistently described the accused as a constable; the judgment frames him as the Sub-Inspector.)

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188131163/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-06-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-06-010)

## State ACB vs Ranga Reddy Police Sub-Inspector of Police (t2w3-09-004)

**Record:** t2w3-09-004
**Title:** State ACB vs Ranga Reddy Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Court:** Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State ACB vs Ranga Reddy Police Sub-Inspector of Police
**Conviction:** 29 January 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranga Reddy, Telangana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police, Nawabpet Police Station, Ranga Reddy District
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + Rs.5,000 fine on each count, concurrent (3 months SI in default of fine)

The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, on 29.01.2019 convicted Sub-Inspector of Police \[name withheld\] of Nawabpet Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, in an ACB trap case, sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment with Rs.5,000 fine on each count under s.7 and s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, sentences concurrent, as announced in the Telangana ACB's official news bulletin.

**Sources (1):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20190810110411/http://www.acb.telangana.gov.in/ACB/Default.aspx)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-09-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-09-004)

## C.C.No.65 of 2014 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); Crl.A.No.431 of 2022 (t2w4-10-001)

**Record:** t2w4-10-001
**Title:** C.C.No.65 of 2014 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); Crl.A.No.431 of 2022
**Court:** Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** C.C.No.65 of 2014 (State ACB vs \[name withheld\]); Crl.A.No.431 of 2022
**Conviction:** 10 July 2023
**Incident date:** 2010-01-01 (2010)
**Place:** Ranga Reddy, Telangana
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), Madhapur Police Station, Hyderabad (trap laid while posted at Raidurgam in 2010)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 2 years imprisonment (fine, if any, not stated in sources reviewed)

The Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, convicted Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) \[name withheld\] of Madhapur Police Station in C.C.No.65 of 2014 vide order dated 02.09.2022, in an ACB trap case where he had been caught accepting Rs.10,000 bribe in 2010 while posted at Raidurgam; he was sentenced to two years imprisonment, as reported by UTV. On appeal (Crl.A.No.431 of 2022), the Telangana High Court suspended the conviction order on 13.01.2023 (recorded in W.P.No.17767 of 2023, decided 10.07.2023), so the appeal is pending.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123188259/); [utvnetwork.in](https://utvnetwork.in/?p=203138); [utvnetwork.in](https://utvnetwork.in/?p=203138 (UTV report: convicted 03.09.2022, sentenced to two years imprisonment for accepting Rs.10,000 bribe in 2010; direct fetch timed out, content via search snippet))
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-10-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-10-001)

## S.T.(Type-1) 07 of 2022 — State vs Rifleman (FIR: Madhupur PS, on complaint of Adjutant, 5th Bn TSR) (t2-12-007)

**Record:** t2-12-007
**Title:** S.T.(Type-1) 07 of 2022 — State vs Rifleman (FIR: Madhupur PS, on complaint of Adjutant, 5th Bn TSR)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Sepahijala Judicial District, Bishalgarh (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** S.T.(Type-1) 07 of 2022 — State vs Rifleman (FIR: Madhupur PS, on complaint of Adjutant, 5th Bn TSR)
**Conviction:** 11 December 2023
**Incident date:** 2021-12-04 (2021)
**Place:** Sepahijala, Tripura
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Rifleman (Constable), Tripura State Rifles, Konaban GCS camp unit, 5th Bn TSR (IR-I), Sepahijala
**Victims:** Sepahijala man; Sepahijala man
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment for life + Rs 50,000 fine (1 year further RI in default), pronounced 12/12/2023; press also reported an additional 1 year for escaping the scene

Additional Sessions Judge, Sepahijala Judicial District, Bishalgarh, in S.T.(Type-1) 07 of 2022 convicted TSR Rifleman under Section 302 IPC (judgment 11/12/2023, sentence 12/12/2023) for opening fire with his service weapon at Konaban GCS camp on 04/12/2021 during a leave dispute, killing Sub(GD) a Sepahijala man on the spot and seriously injuring NK-Sub(GD) a Sepahijala man who tried to snatch the weapon. He was sentenced to RI for life with a Rs 50,000 fine. The Tripura High Court (Crl.A.(J) 22/2024, decided 24/06/2025) dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding denial of leave could not justify shooting a superior.

**Sources (2):** [rawlaw.in](https://rawlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Sri-Sukanta-Das.pdf); [tripurachronicle.in](https://tripurachronicle.in/local-news/tsr-constable-gets-life-term-for-killing-two-colleagues-in-2021/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-12-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-12-007)

## Anti-corruption trap case: State vs Head Constable, Runkata outpost, PS Achhnera (Rs 125 bribe; complainant Smt. Agra Woman) (t2w3-28-008)

**Record:** t2w3-28-008
**Title:** Anti-corruption trap case: State vs Head Constable, Runkata outpost, PS Achhnera (Rs 125 bribe; complainant Smt. Agra Woman)
**Court:** Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Agra (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Anti-corruption trap case: State vs Head Constable, Runkata outpost, PS Achhnera (Rs 125 bribe; complainant Smt. Agra Woman)
**Conviction:** 4 September 1981
**Incident date:** 1977-05-05 (1977)
**Place:** Agra, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 161 (conviction set aside on appeal); PC Act 1947 s.5(2); IPC 224
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, UP Police, Runkata outpost, PS Achhnera, Agra
**Victims:** Agra woman
**Sentence:** 2 years RI (PC Act 5(2)), 2 years RI (IPC 161, set aside on appeal), 1 year RI (IPC 224), concurrent; on appeal PC Act sentence reduced to 1 year RI

Per the Allahabad High Court judgment of 04-09-1981, Head Constable of Runkata outpost (PS Achhnera, Agra) was convicted by the Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Agra after an Anti-Corruption CID trap on 05-05-1977 caught him accepting Rs 125 from complainant Smt. An Agra woman, whose release he had conditioned on a Rs 500 bribe. The High Court set aside the IPC 161 conviction but affirmed the PC Act 1947 s.5(2) conviction (reducing sentence to 1 year RI) and the IPC 224 conviction (resisting lawful apprehension, 1 year RI). Exact trial conviction date is not stated in the accessed extract.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1786563/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/279258/pdf/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-28-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-28-008)

## Sessions Trial No. 207 of 1997 (Crime No. 659/1996, PS Majhaula; State vs Sanjay & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\]) (t2w3-28-007)

**Record:** t2w3-28-007
**Title:** Sessions Trial No. 207 of 1997 (Crime No. 659/1996, PS Majhaula; State vs Sanjay & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\])
**Court:** Additional District Judge-7, Moradabad (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Trial No. 207 of 1997 (Crime No. 659/1996, PS Majhaula; State vs Sanjay & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\])
**Conviction:** 23 August 2002
**Incident date:** 1996-11-01 (1996)
**Place:** Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, UP Police, Civil Police / GRP Shahjahanpur
**Victims:** Moradabad man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment

Per the Allahabad High Court judgment of 23-08-2002, Constable (then posted at GRP Shahjahanpur) was convicted by the Additional District Judge-7, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment under IPC 302/34 for the pre-meditated murder of a Moradabad man (Crime No. 659/1996, PS Majhaula). He was dismissed from service on 22-06-2001. Criminal Appeal No. 1199 of 2001 was filed and the High Court suspended his conviction and sentence on 09-11-2001; exact trial conviction date is not stated in the extract, dated here to August 2001 from the appeal record.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1334968/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1203298/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-28-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-28-007)

## Sessions Trial No. 306 of 1985 (State vs \[name withheld\], Constable, PS Fatehpur; complainant \[name withheld\]) (t2w3-28-013)

**Record:** t2w3-28-013
**Title:** Sessions Trial No. 306 of 1985 (State vs \[name withheld\], Constable, PS Fatehpur; complainant \[name withheld\])
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Barabanki (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Trial No. 306 of 1985 (State vs \[name withheld\], Constable, PS Fatehpur; complainant \[name withheld\])
**Conviction:** 11 March 1987
**Incident date:** 1985-05-09 (1985)
**Place:** Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 376
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, UP Police, PS Fatehpur
**Victims:** Barabanki woman
**Sentence:** 6 years rigorous imprisonment

Per the Allahabad High Court judgment of 26-08-2002, Constable (PS Fatehpur) was convicted on 11-03-1987 by the Sessions Judge, Barabanki in ST No. 306 of 1985 for the rape of an \[name withheld\] at the police-station quarters on 09-05-1985, and sentenced to 6 years RI under IPC 376. The High Court dismissed the appeal (Crl.A.213/1987) and affirmed the conviction. The victim name is withheld throughout as she was a minor.

**Sources (2):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/331308/raj-nath-vs-state-of-up/); [sooperkanoon.com](https://sooperkanoon.com/case/490532/raj-nath-vs-state-u-p)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-28-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-28-013)

## State vs Uttar Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector (t2w3-18-007)

**Record:** t2w3-18-007
**Title:** State vs Uttar Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Fast-Track Court, Sonbhadra (Judge Avinash Dwivedi) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Uttar Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 4 January 2010
**Incident date:** 2003-09-02 (2003)
**Place:** Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 147; IPC 148; IPC 149; IPC 302; IPC 201; IPC 218; IPC 342; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Uttar Pradesh Police; Constable, Uttar Pradesh Police; Constable, Uttar Pradesh Police; Constable, Uttar Pradesh Police; Constable, Uttar Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Sonbhadra man; Sonbhadra man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment for all five (pronounced Monday 04-01-2010); nine other accused to be sentenced later (outcome untraced)

Per the Indian Express Lucknow report, the Sonbhadra fast-track court (Judge Avinash Dwivedi) sentenced SI and constables, \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] to life with fines for killing a Sonbhadra man and a Sonbhadra man — Jharkhand residents picked up from Jharokhas railway station — in a staged encounter in Rungtola forest on 02-09-2003. The CB-CID FIR (21-02-2006, PS Pipri) followed a magisterial inquiry; sixteen were chargesheeted. The 2007 Allahabad HC bail order in the same case confirms the sections, CB-CID probe and victims; note it styles one applicant '\[name withheld\] (Constable. 753)' against the IE's '\[name withheld\]'.

**Sources (2):** [indianexpress.com](https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/five-policemen-get-life-term-fined-in-fake-encounter-case/); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1479019/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-18-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-18-007)

## CBI v. Bijnor Police Sub-Inspector (t2w2-13-003)

**Record:** t2w2-13-003
**Title:** CBI v. Bijnor Police Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special CBI Court, Ghaziabad (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Bijnor Police Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 29 March 2012
**Incident date:** 1992-10-30 (1992)
**Place:** Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 364; IPC 302
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Bijnor Police, UP; various ranks (16 personnel), Bijnor Police, UP
**Victims:** Bijnor man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment to all 17 + Rs.5,000 fine each (2 of 19 chargesheeted died during trial)

The Special CBI Court at Ghaziabad on 29 March 2012 convicted 17 Bijnor policemen led by then-SI \[name withheld\] under ss. 120B/364/302 IPC and sentenced each to life imprisonment plus Rs.5,000 fine for abducting a Bijnor man @ a Bijnor man, a Gurdwara Rakabganj sewadar, from Delhi on 30 October 1992 and murdering him in a staged encounter near Kashiwala village (PS Bardhapur, Bijnor) the next day with planted weapons. The CBI had registered the case on 15 November 1993 on Supreme Court orders (Crl WP 632/92) and chargesheeted 19 officials in March 1996, two of whom died during trial.

**Sources (3):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/Mzk4Mg==); [sikhsiyasatnews.net](https://sikhsiyasatnews.net/rare-conviction-after-22-years-of-killing-a-sikh-in-fake-encounter-indian-cops-get-life-term/); [manipur.org](https://www.manipur.org/news/2012/03/29/17-sentenced-in-fake-encounter-case/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-13-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-13-003)

## CBI vs UP Police Sub-Inspector (then SI) (t2w2-01-008)

**Record:** t2w2-01-008
**Title:** CBI vs UP Police Sub-Inspector (then SI)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Ghaziabad (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs UP Police Sub-Inspector (then SI)
**Conviction:** 31 May 2012
**Incident date:** 1995-05-07 (1995)
**Place:** Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B r/w 304, 325, 342, 201, 218; IPC 304; IPC 325; IPC 342; IPC 201; IPC 218
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (then SI), UP Police (Khurja/Meerut); Inspector (then Inspector), UP Police (Khurja/Meerut); Constable (then Police Constable), UP Police (Khurja/Meerut); Sub-Inspector (then SI), UP Police (Khurja/Meerut); Sub-Inspector (then SI), UP Police (Khurja/Meerut); Constable (then Police Constable), UP Police (Khurja/Meerut)
**Victims:** Bulandshahr man; Bulandshahr resident
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]: 10 years RI each; \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\]: 3 years RI each (convicted 31 May 2012, sentenced 1 June 2012); co-accused constable acquitted

The Special Judge for CBI Cases Ghaziabad on 31 May 2012 convicted six UP Police officials for conspiring to pick up a Bulandshahr man of Jewar (Bulandshahr) and seven others on 7 May 1995 at Khurja/Meerut, illegally detaining and mercilessly beating them; a Bulandshahr man died of grievous injuries on 16 May 1995 at Medical College Meerut. Three convicts drew 10 years and three drew 3 years rigorous imprisonment on 1 June 2012, while a seventh constable was acquitted. The CBI registered the case in January 1996 on Supreme Court orders in a writ petition by a Bulandshahr man's mother \[name withheld\] and chargesheeted the accused in September 1996.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzkxMQ==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-01-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-01-008)

## CBI v. Lucknow Police Constable (CBI; on deputation from Punjab Police) (t2w3-24-014)

**Record:** t2w3-24-014
**Title:** CBI v. Lucknow Police Constable (CBI; on deputation from Punjab Police)
**Court:** Special Judge, Anti-Corruption UP (West), Lucknow (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Lucknow Police Constable (CBI; on deputation from Punjab Police)
**Conviction:** 24 August 2013
**Incident date:** 2004-03-12 (2004)
**Place:** Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B r/w PC Act 1988 ss.7 & 8
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (CBI; on deputation from Punjab Police), ACB, Lucknow (CBI)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment

The CBI press release states that the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption UP (West), Lucknow convicted CBI Constable (on deputation from \[name withheld\] Police, then posted at ACB Lucknow) and advocate S.C. Agnihotri in a bribery case, sentencing each to five years RI with Rs.40,000 fine. The release states Rs.1 lakh in two instalments was agreed for excluding the complainant from a CBI case chargesheet; both were trapped on 14.03.2004 accepting Rs.25,000 at Agnihotri's LDA \[name withheld\] residence; CBI chargesheeted them on 05.08.2005 and the trial concluded on 24.08.2013.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzUxMg==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-24-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-24-014)

## Sessions trial arising from PS Chhibramau incident (Udharanpur bridge, Jahanganj road; State vs \[name withheld\]; Maruti Van UP 78 C 8262 burning) (t2w3-28-011)

**Record:** t2w3-28-011
**Title:** Sessions trial arising from PS Chhibramau incident (Udharanpur bridge, Jahanganj road; State vs \[name withheld\]; Maruti Van UP 78 C 8262 burning)
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Kanpur (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions trial arising from PS Chhibramau incident (Udharanpur bridge, Jahanganj road; State vs \[name withheld\]; Maruti Van UP 78 C 8262 burning)
**Conviction:** 1 July 2014
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 307; IPC 436
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, UP Police, Police Chowki Gurdev Palace, Kanpur
**Victims:** Kannauj woman; Kannauj woman; Kannauj woman; Kannauj resident; Kannauj resident
**Sentence:** Death sentence (IPC 302) + life RI (IPC 307) + 7 years RI (IPC 436); High Court confirmed 16-02-2010; Supreme Court on 01-07-2014 commuted death to 30 years imprisonment without remission

Per the Supreme Court judgment of 01-07-2014, Constable (Chowki Gurdev Palace, Kanpur) was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur for locking his wife \[name withheld\] and four children inside a Maruti van near Udharanpur bridge (PS Chhibramau area), setting it ablaze and pushing it into a pit; his wife and two daughters died. The trial court imposed death (IPC 302), life RI (IPC 307) and 7 years RI (IPC 436). The Allahabad High Court confirmed on 16-02-2010; the Supreme Court upheld the conviction but commuted death to 30 years without remission. Exact trial-conviction and incident dates are not stated in the accessed extract (trial judgment in early 2009 per Crl.A.1942/2009).

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64742396/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court-commutes-death-sentence-u-p-police-constable-instead-awarded-30-years-imprisonment-without-remission-read-judgment)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-28-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-28-011)

## Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2001 (State vs \[name withheld\]) (t2w3-28-014)

**Record:** t2w3-28-014
**Title:** Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2001 (State vs \[name withheld\])
**Court:** Special Judge / Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2001 (State vs \[name withheld\])
**Conviction:** 18 June 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ballia, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 148; IPC 302; IPC 149; IPC 120B
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, UP Police (appointed 01-11-1978)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment

Per the Allahabad High Court Division Bench judgment of 25-03-2015 (Chandrachud CJ), Constable was convicted on 18-06-2010 by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2001 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was dismissed from service on 08-09-2010 under Rule 8(2)(a) of the UP Police Subordinate Ranks Rules. The Division Bench allowed the \[name withheld\]'s appeal and restored the dismissal, observing a criminal appeal against the conviction was pending. The judgment once prints the conspiracy charge as '320/120B', read here as 302/120B consistent with the rest of the judgment.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177756566/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-28-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-28-014)

## CBI vs UP Police Constable (then Constable; gunner attached to ASI) (t2w2-01-007)

**Record:** t2w2-01-007
**Title:** CBI vs UP Police Constable (then Constable; gunner attached to ASI)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Lucknow (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs UP Police Constable (then Constable; gunner attached to ASI)
**Conviction:** May 2015
**Incident date:** 1993-04-01 (1993)
**Place:** Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B; IPC 420; IPC 109; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (then Constable; gunner attached to ASI), Office of SSP Jhansi / Lalitpur, UP Police; Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) (then ASI(M)/Assistant Accountant), Office of SSP Jhansi, UP Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\]: 5 years RI + Rs 20,000 fine; \[name withheld\]: 3 years RI + Rs 20,000 fine; co-accused MP died during trial

The Special Judge CBI Lucknow in May 2015 convicted UP Police constable and ASI (Ministerial) \[name withheld\] of the SSP Jhansi office for submitting and passing 52 false and fictitious TA bills of about Rs 1,80,408 between April 1993 and March 1994, sentencing them to five and three years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The case arose from the same Allahabad High Court order of 8 May 2001 (Crl. Misc. Case 2308/2001) as the companion TA-bill case; a chargesheeted Member of Parliament died during trial.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjExMw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-01-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-01-007)

## Case Crime No. 48 of 1999, PS Chandpur, Fatehpur (State vs \[name withheld\]) (t2w3-28-015)

**Record:** t2w3-28-015
**Title:** Case Crime No. 48 of 1999, PS Chandpur, Fatehpur (State vs \[name withheld\])
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Fatehpur (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Case Crime No. 48 of 1999, PS Chandpur, Fatehpur (State vs \[name withheld\])
**Conviction:** 9 July 2010
**Incident date:** 1999-01-01 (1999)
**Place:** Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 34; SC/ST Act 1989 s.3(2)(v)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, UP Police (civil police)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Life rigorous imprisonment

Per the Allahabad High Court Division Bench judgment of 15-05-2015 (Chandrachud CJ), Constable was convicted on 09-07-2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Fatehpur under IPC 302/34 and SC/ST Act 3(2)(v) in Case Crime No. 48 of 1999 (PS Chandpur, Fatehpur) and sentenced to life RI. He was suspended 26-07-2010 and dismissed 25-08-2010 by the SP Hamirpur. The Division Bench allowed the \[name withheld\]'s writ and set aside the Tribunal's reinstatement order; his criminal appeal was pending (bail granted 28-01-2011, conviction not suspended per order dated 16-09-2011).

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148467650/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-28-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-28-015)

## CBI vs UP Police Constable/Gunner (then Police Constable/Gunner) (t2w2-01-006)

**Record:** t2w2-01-006
**Title:** CBI vs UP Police Constable/Gunner (then Police Constable/Gunner)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Lucknow (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs UP Police Constable/Gunner (then Police Constable/Gunner)
**Conviction:** August 2015
**Incident date:** 1993-01-01 (1993)
**Place:** Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120-B; IPC 420; IPC 468; IPC 471; PC Act 1988 s.13(3) r/w 13(1)(d)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable/Gunner (then Police Constable/Gunner), UP Police, Jhansi; Assistant Sub-Inspector (then ASI/Assistant Accountant/Cashier), UP Police, Jhansi
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** \[name withheld\]: 5 years RI + Rs 40,000 fine; \[name withheld\]: 3 years RI + Rs 20,000 fine

The Special Judge for CBI Cases Lucknow in August 2015 convicted UP Police constable/gunner \[name withheld\] and ASI (\[name withheld\] accountant) \[name withheld\] of Jhansi for a criminal conspiracy in 1993-94 in which 63 false TA bills of about Rs 1,41,525 were submitted and passed for payment for train classes not entitled, sentencing them to five and three years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The CBI registered the case in July 2001 on Allahabad High Court orders and chargesheeted both in July 2003 under IPC cheating/forgery provisions and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjAxOA==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-01-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-01-006)

## CBI vs UP Police Inspector (then Inspector & In-charge) (t2w2-01-005)

**Record:** t2w2-01-005
**Title:** CBI vs UP Police Inspector (then Inspector & In-charge)
**Court:** Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI Court No. 3, Ghaziabad (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs UP Police Inspector (then Inspector & In-charge)
**Conviction:** December 2015
**Incident date:** 2000-01-01 (2000)
**Place:** Meerut, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302 r/w 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector (then Inspector & In-charge), PS Daurala, Meerut, UP Police; Constable (then Constable), PS Daurala, Meerut, UP Police; Constable (then Constable), PS Daurala, Meerut, UP Police
**Victims:** Meerut woman; Meerut resident
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment + Rs 1,00,000 fine each u/s 302 r/w 34

The Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) CBI Court No. 3 Ghaziabad in December 2015 sentenced Inspector and constables and \[name withheld\] of Daurala police station, Meerut, to life imprisonment with Rs 1 lakh fine each for the murder of student a Meerut woman in a police firing in 2000, in which her companion was also injured. The CBI took over Case Crime No. 14 of 2000 in May 2000 on the UP Government's request and chargesheeted the three in December 2001. Exact conviction date within December 2015 not stated in the release.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MTkzMA==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-01-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-01-005)

## CBI v. Pilibhit Police various ranks, UP Provincial Armed Constabulary (t2-17-009)

**Record:** t2-17-009
**Title:** CBI v. Pilibhit Police various ranks, UP Provincial Armed Constabulary
**Court:** Special Judge CBI / Additional District Judge, Lucknow (Special Judge Lallu Singh) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Pilibhit Police various ranks, UP Provincial Armed Constabulary
**Conviction:** 1 April 2016
**Incident date:** 1991-07-12 (1991)
**Place:** Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 302; IPC 364; IPC 365; IPC 218; IPC 117
**Officers (gated display forms):** various ranks, UP Provincial Armed Constabulary, UP Provincial Armed Constabulary
**Victims:** Pilibhit resident
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment to 47 policemen (trial court); Allahabad HC (Lucknow bench, 16 Dec 2022) modified to 7 years RI + fine under IPC s.304 Part I for 43 appellants

The Lucknow Special CBI Court held 47 UP policemen guilty of abducting ten Sikh pilgrims from a bus on 12 July 1991, dividing them into groups and shooting them dead in cold blood in staged encounters to earn gallantry rewards, then fabricating records; all were sentenced to life on 4 April 2016 after a Supreme Court-ordered CBI probe. The Allahabad High Court in December 2022 sustained guilt but converted the conviction to IPC s.304 Part I with seven years for 43 appellants.

**Sources (10):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/devendra-pandey-and-others-vs-state-of-up-thru-cbi-along-with-connected-matters-allahabad-high-court-449401.pdf); [livemint.com](https://www.livemint.com/Politics/h3SICJmH3S0rx2Sd2lbbtL/Pilibhit-encounter-CBI-court-awards-life-sentence-to-47-pol.html); [en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_masacre_in_Pilibhit_forest); [domain-b.com](https://www.domain-b.com/amp/economy/government-1/pilibhit-fake-encounter-special-cbi-court-sentences-47-policemen-to-life); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/allahabad-high-court-pilibhit-fake-encounter1991-police-cant-kill-accused-dreaded-criminal-216843); [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MTg3MQ==); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/devendra-pandey-and-others-v-state-of-up-thru-cbi-and-connected-appeals-allahabad-hc-419288.pdf); [livemint.com](https://www.livemint.com/Politics/h3SICJmH3S0rx2Sd2lbbtL/Pilibhit-encounter-CBI-court-awards-life-sentence-to-47-pol.html?facet=amp); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/allahabad-high-court-pilibhit-encounter-1991-exceeded-power-convicts-43cops-304parti-ipc-216837); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/barbaric-inhuman-killing-allahabad-hc-denies-bail-34-cops-accused-killing-sikhs-fake-encounter-terrorists-200083)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-17-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-17-009)

## State of UP through CBI v. UP Police UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment) (t2-16-003)

**Record:** t2-16-003
**Title:** State of UP through CBI v. UP Police UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Court No.1 / Additional District Judge, Lucknow (Spl Judge Lallu Singh) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** State of UP through CBI v. UP Police UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment)
**Conviction:** 4 April 2016
**Incident date:** 1991-07-12 (1991)
**Place:** Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 302; IPC 364; IPC 365; IPC 218; IPC 117
**Officers (gated display forms):** UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); Inspector, UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions); UP Police personnel (rank not individually stated in judgment), UP Police (Pilibhit operation teams; PS Neoria/Bilsanda/Puranpur jurisdictions)
**Victims:** Pilibhit man; Pilibhit man; Pilibhit man; Pilibhit man; Pilibhit man
**Sentence:** Trial court (4 April 2016): life imprisonment (302/120B) + 10 yr RI (364) + 5 yr RI (365) + 2 yr RI (218) + 1 yr RI (117) with graded fines (Rs 2-7 lakh on 302 count). Guilty verdict 1 April 2016.

The Special Judge CBI/ADJ Lucknow on 4 April 2016 convicted 47 UP policemen of abducting ten Sikh pilgrims from a bus on 12-13 July 1991 and killing them in staged encounters at three sites (Neoria, Bilsanda, Puranpur), then fabricating encounter records; motive per CBI was gallantry awards. All 47 got life terms plus consecutive RI counts. On 15 December 2022 the Allahabad High Court (Justices Ramesh Sinha and Saroj Yadav) partly allowed appeals: it set aside the 302/120B murder conviction for want of proved conspiracy but convicted the 43 surviving appellants of culpable homicide (304-I IPC), holding police exceeded lawful power and cannot kill even dreaded criminals, sentencing them to 7 years RI plus Rs 10,000 fine.

**Sources (3):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/devendra-pandey-and-others-vs-state-of-up-thru-cbi-along-with-connected-matters-allahabad-high-court-449410.pdf); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/allahabad-high-court-pilibhit-fake-encounter1991-police-cant-kill-accused-dreaded-criminal-216843); [livemint.com](https://www.livemint.com/Politics/h3SICJmH3S0rx2Sd2lbbtL/Pilibhit-encounter-CBI-court-awards-life-sentence-to-47-pol.html?facet=amp)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-16-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-16-003)

## State vs UP Police Sub-Inspector (In-charge, police outpost Lalghat) (t2w2-01-014)

**Record:** t2w2-01-014
**Title:** State vs UP Police Sub-Inspector (In-charge, police outpost Lalghat)
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No.5, Gorakhpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State vs UP Police Sub-Inspector (In-charge, police outpost Lalghat)
**Conviction:** 30 November 2015
**Incident date:** 2008-10-06 (2008)
**Place:** Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector (In-charge, police outpost Lalghat), PS Jiyanpur, Azamgarh, UP Police (resident Gahni, PS Bahariyabad, Ghazipur)
**Victims:** Azamgarh woman
**Sentence:** 3 years RI + Rs 10,000 fine (s.7; 4 months default) and 4 years RI + Rs 20,000 fine (s.13; 6 months default)

Special Judge (PC Act) Court No. 5 Gorakhpur on 30 November 2015 convicted SI, in-charge of outpost Lalghat (PS Jiyanpur, Azamgarh), for demanding Rs 5,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] to recover her kidnapped 12-year-old daughter, accepting Rs 3,000 and being trapped by the Vigilance Establishment Gorakhpur on 6 October 2008 while taking the remaining Rs 2,000; he drew 3 years RI under s.7 and 4 years RI under s.13 PC Act with Rs 30,000 total fine. The Allahabad High Court (Pratyush Kumar J, Crl. Appeal 5855/2015, 8 December 2016) dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence, directing him to serve the remainder.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143442172/); [amarujala.com](https://www.amarujala.com/uttar-pradesh/gorakhpur/crime/4-year-jail-to-police-man-to-take-bribe-hindi-news)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-01-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-01-014)

## CBI vs UP Police Station Officer (then SO) (t2w2-01-004)

**Record:** t2w2-01-004
**Title:** CBI vs UP Police Station Officer (then SO)
**Court:** Special CBI Court, Ghaziabad (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs UP Police Station Officer (then SO)
**Conviction:** 20 February 2017
**Incident date:** 1996-11-08 (1996)
**Place:** Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 193; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Station Officer (then SO), PS Bhojpur, Ghaziabad, UP Police; Sub-Inspector (then SI), PS Bhojpur, Ghaziabad, UP Police; Constable (then Constable), PS Bhojpur, Ghaziabad, UP Police; Constable (then Constable), PS Bhojpur, Ghaziabad, UP Police
**Victims:** Ghaziabad man; Ghaziabad man; Ghaziabad man; Ghaziabad man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment each u/s 302 (fines: SO Rs 2,00,000; SI 1,00,000; constables 50,000 each) + 2 years RI u/s 193 (Rs 10,000 fine each) + 4 years RI u/s 201 (Rs 20,000 fine each), concurrent; 50% of total fine to victims' families; 5th accused constable died during trial; 99 prosecution witnesses examined

The Special Judge for CBI Cases Ghaziabad on 20 February 2017 convicted four Bhojpur police personnel of murdering four unarmed labourers — a Ghaziabad man, a Ghaziabad man, a Ghaziabad man and a Ghaziabad man — whom they had picked up on 8 November 1996 and shot dead at Macheri ki pulia on the Modi Nagar-Hapur Road, falsely showing an exchange of fire. All four drew life terms plus consecutive RI counts for false evidence and destroying evidence, with half the fines directed to the victims' families. The CBI had registered the case in April 1997 at the UP Government's request and chargesheeted five policemen in 2001, one of whom died during trial.

**Sources (3):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MjY3Mg==); [legalindia.com](https://www.legalindia.com/news/extra-judicial-killings-life-term-4-policemen); [scoopwhoop.com](https://www.scoopwhoop.com/news/four-up-cops-sentenced-to-life-imprisonment-in-fake-encounter-that-killed-four-youths/&=1/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-01-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-01-004)

## Sessions Case No. 89/2008 & 85/2008 (FIR No. 1004/2006, PS Sector-20, Noida; State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\]) (t2w3-28-001)

**Record:** t2w3-28-001
**Title:** Sessions Case No. 89/2008 & 85/2008 (FIR No. 1004/2006, PS Sector-20, Noida; State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\])
**Court:** ASJ (FTC-04), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (transferred from ASJ FTC-04, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, vide SC order 24-01-2011) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Case No. 89/2008 & 85/2008 (FIR No. 1004/2006, PS Sector-20, Noida; State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\])
**Conviction:** 14 March 2019
**Incident date:** 2006-09-01 (2006)
**Place:** Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304; IPC 365 r/w 34; IPC 220; IPC 167
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, UP Police, Noida (Gautam Budh Nagar)
**Victims:** Gautam Buddha Nagar man, age 26
**Sentence:** 10 years rigorous imprisonment (IPC 304/34), with additional concurrent terms; all sentences to run concurrently

Per the Delhi High Court judgment of 26-06-2023, \[name withheld\] was among five UP Police officers convicted by the Sessions Judge, Delhi (Karkardooma; case transferred from Gautam Budh Nagar by the Supreme Court on 24-01-2011) for the custodial torture and death of 26-year-old a Gautam Buddha Nagar man @ a Gautam Buddha Nagar man, picked up in civil dress on 01-09-2006 and shown as a suicide at PS Sector-20, Noida. The trial court imposed 10 years RI (order on sentence 20-03-2019). The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, rejecting the suicide theory and the complainant's plea to convert the charge to murder (IPC 302).

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142461883/); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/2016-custodial-death-case-delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-10-yrs-jail-term-5-cops); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-up-police-officials-custodial-death); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-10-yrs-sentence-of-five-uttar-pradesh-cops-custodial-torture-26-yr-old-231352)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-28-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-28-001)

## Sessions Case No. 89/2008 & 85/2008 (FIR No. 1004/2006, PS Sector-20, Noida; State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\]) (t2w3-28-003)

**Record:** t2w3-28-003
**Title:** Sessions Case No. 89/2008 & 85/2008 (FIR No. 1004/2006, PS Sector-20, Noida; State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\])
**Court:** ASJ (FTC-04), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (transferred from ASJ FTC-04, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, vide SC order 24-01-2011) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Case No. 89/2008 & 85/2008 (FIR No. 1004/2006, PS Sector-20, Noida; State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\])
**Conviction:** 14 March 2019
**Incident date:** 2006-09-01 (2006)
**Place:** Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part I; IPC 365; IPC 220; IPC 167; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, UP Police, Noida (Gautam Budh Nagar)
**Victims:** Gautam Buddha Nagar man, age 26
**Sentence:** 10 years rigorous imprisonment (IPC 304/34) plus 3 years RI (IPC 365/34); sentences to run concurrently

Per the Delhi High Court judgment of 26-06-2023, Constable was among five UP Police officers convicted by the Sessions Judge, Delhi (Karkardooma; transferred from Gautam Budh Nagar by the Supreme Court) for the custodial torture and death of a Gautam Buddha Nagar man @ a Gautam Buddha Nagar man on 01/02-09-2006, falsely shown as suicide at PS Sector-20, Noida. The trial court sentenced him to 10 years RI with concurrent terms including 3 years RI under IPC 365/34 (order on sentence 20-03-2019). The High Court upheld the conviction.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142461883/); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/2016-custodial-death-case-delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-10-yrs-jail-term-5-cops); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-up-police-officials-custodial-death); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-10-yrs-sentence-of-five-uttar-pradesh-cops-custodial-torture-26-yr-old-231352)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-28-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-28-003)

## Sessions Case No. 89/2008 & 85/2008 (FIR No. 1004/2006, PS Sector-20, Noida; State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\]) (t2w3-28-004)

**Record:** t2w3-28-004
**Title:** Sessions Case No. 89/2008 & 85/2008 (FIR No. 1004/2006, PS Sector-20, Noida; State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\])
**Court:** ASJ (FTC-04), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (transferred from ASJ FTC-04, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, vide SC order 24-01-2011) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Case No. 89/2008 & 85/2008 (FIR No. 1004/2006, PS Sector-20, Noida; State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\])
**Conviction:** 14 March 2019
**Incident date:** 2006-09-01 (2006)
**Place:** Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part I; IPC 365; IPC 220; IPC 167; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, UP Police, Noida (Gautam Budh Nagar)
**Victims:** Gautam Budh Nagar man, age 26
**Sentence:** 10 years rigorous imprisonment (IPC 304/34) plus 3 years RI (IPC 167); sentences to run concurrently

Per the Delhi High Court judgment of 26-06-2023, Constable was among five UP Police officers convicted by the Sessions Judge, Delhi (Karkardooma; transferred from Gautam Budh Nagar by the Supreme Court) for the custodial torture and death of a Gautam Budh Nagar man @ a Gautam Budh Nagar man on 01/02-09-2006, falsely shown as suicide at PS Sector-20, Noida. The trial court sentenced him to 10 years RI with concurrent terms including 3 years RI under IPC 167 (order on sentence 20-03-2019). The High Court upheld the conviction.

**Sources (4):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142461883/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-up-police-officials-custodial-death); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-10-yrs-jail-term-5-cops); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-10-yrs-sentence-of-five-uttar-pradesh-cops-custodial-torture-26-yr-old-231352)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-28-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-28-004)

## Sessions Case No. 89/2008 & 85/2008 (FIR No. 1004/2006, PS Sector-20, Noida; State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\]) (t2w3-28-005)

**Record:** t2w3-28-005
**Title:** Sessions Case No. 89/2008 & 85/2008 (FIR No. 1004/2006, PS Sector-20, Noida; State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\])
**Court:** ASJ (FTC-04), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (transferred from ASJ FTC-04, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, vide SC order 24-01-2011) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Case No. 89/2008 & 85/2008 (FIR No. 1004/2006, PS Sector-20, Noida; State vs \[name withheld\] & Ors.; deceased \[name withheld\])
**Conviction:** 14 March 2019
**Incident date:** 2006-09-01 (2006)
**Place:** Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part I; IPC 365; IPC 220; IPC 167; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, UP Police, Noida (Gautam Budh Nagar)
**Victims:** Gautam Buddha Nagar man, age 26
**Sentence:** 10 years rigorous imprisonment (IPC 304/34); all sentences to run concurrently

Per the Delhi High Court judgment of 26-06-2023, Constable was among five UP Police officers convicted by the Sessions Judge, Delhi (Karkardooma; transferred from Gautam Budh Nagar by the Supreme Court) for the custodial torture and death of a Gautam Buddha Nagar man @ a Gautam Buddha Nagar man on 01/02-09-2006, falsely shown as suicide at PS Sector-20, Noida. The trial court sentenced him to 10 years RI with all sentences concurrent (order on sentence 20-03-2019). The High Court upheld the conviction, rejecting the suicide theory.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142461883/); [lawbeat.in](https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/2016-custodial-death-case-delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-10-yrs-jail-term-5-cops); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-10-yrs-sentence-of-five-uttar-pradesh-cops-custodial-torture-26-yr-old-231352)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-28-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-28-005)

## CBI v. UP Police Constable (then Constable) (t2-13-023)

**Record:** t2-13-023
**Title:** CBI v. UP Police Constable (then Constable)
**Court:** Special Judge, Lucknow (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. UP Police Constable (then Constable)
**Conviction:** 28 February 2020
**Incident date:** 2011-01-01 (2011)
**Place:** Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (then Constable), PS Nighasan, Lakhimpur Kheri, UP Police; DSP (then DSP), Uttar Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Lakhimpur Kheri woman
**Sentence:** \[name a Lakhimpur Kheri woman\]: life imprisonment + fine Rs 1,00,000; \[name a Lakhimpur Kheri woman\]: 5 years' RI + fine Rs 50,000

The Special Judge, Lucknow convicted UP Police Constable and DSP for the rape and murder of a victim inside Nighasan police station premises, sentencing them to life and 5 years' RI respectively. The CBI took over FIR 706/2011 on the UP Government's request and chargesheeted four policemen in March 2013; two constables were acquitted. Victim identity is a Lakhimpur Kheri woman as a sexual-assault victim. Incident in 2011 per FIR year.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzAyMw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-023)

## CBI vs UP Police Police officer (rank not stated in report) (t2-08-005)

**Record:** t2-08-005
**Title:** CBI vs UP Police Police officer (rank not stated in report)
**Court:** District & Sessions Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (District Judge Dharmesh Sharma; transferred from UP by Supreme Court order 01-08-2019) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs UP Police Police officer (rank not stated in report)
**Conviction:** 22 September 2023
**Incident date:** 2018-04-03 (2018)
**Place:** Unnao, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial death
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 120B; IPC 304 Part II; IPC 166; IPC 167; IPC 193; IPC 201; IPC 203; IPC 211; IPC 218; IPC 323; IPC 341
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police officer (rank not stated in report), UP Police, Makhi police station, Unnao; Police officer (rank not stated in report), UP Police, Makhi police station, Unnao
**Victims:** Unnao man
**Sentence:** 10 years imprisonment each (along with Sengar and 3 others)

The CBI trial court convicted former UP Police officers \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] on 4 March 2020 for conspiring with Kuldeep Sengar's camp to foist a false Arms Act FIR on the Unnao rape survivor's father, after which he was beaten and died in custody at Makhi police station in April 2018. Both policemen were sentenced to 10 years in jail. Their appeals are pending before the Delhi High Court, which granted them bail in September 2023.

**Sources (7):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46038751/); [barandbench.com](https://www.barandbench.com/news/unnao-rape-case-delhi-high-court-grants-bail-to-up-police-officials-convicted-custodial-death-victim-father); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/court-to-hear-arguments-on-sentencing-in-custodial-death-case-of-unnao-rape-victims-father-1592063.html); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/india/news/kuldeep-singh-sengar-sentenced-to-10-years-in-jail-for-death-of-unnao-rape-survivors-father-1595097.html/amp); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-grants-bail-convicted-up-police-officers-custodial-death-of-unnao-rape-survivors-father-238503); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-grants-bail-convicted-up-police-officers-custodial-death-of-unnao-rape-survivors-father-238503); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/death-of-unnao-rape-victims-father-delhi-court-convicts-ex-bjp-mla-kuldeep-singh-sengar-of-culpable-homicide-not-amounting-to-murder-153440)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Appeal pending

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-08-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-08-005)

## CBI v. Muzaffarnagar Police Constable (then PAC policeman) (t2-13-016)

**Record:** t2-13-016
**Title:** CBI v. Muzaffarnagar Police Constable (then PAC policeman)
**Court:** CBI Court / Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Muzaffarnagar Police Constable (then PAC policeman)
**Conviction:** 15 March 2024
**Incident date:** 1994-10-01 (1994)
**Place:** Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.376(2)(g); IPC s.392; IPC s.354; IPC s.509
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (then PAC policeman), Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), Uttar Pradesh; Constable (then PAC policeman), Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), Uttar Pradesh
**Victims:** Muzaffarnagar woman
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment + fine Rs 1,00,000 each, entire fine to the victim (convicted 15.03.2024; sentenced 18.03.2024)

The Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar convicted two Uttar Pradesh PAC policemen of gang rape, robbery, molestation and insulting the modesty of a woman rallyist detained at Rampur Tiraha on the night of 01-02.10.1994, sentencing each to life with Rs 1 lakh fine payable to the victim. Police had stopped and detained 345 Uttarakhand-rally buses' occupants, including 47 women; the CBI registered the case in 1995 on Allahabad High Court orders and chargesheeted the accused in 1996. Victim identity is a Muzaffarnagar woman as a sexual-assault survivor.

**Sources (5):** [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/india-news-two-ex-policemen-get-life-imprisonment-in-nearly-three-decade-old-case-of-molestation-rape-5829450.html); [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NjE4OA==); [pune.news](https://pune.news/nation/2-retired-up-cops-get-life-term-for-1994-rape-case-156097/); [latestly.com](https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/india-news-rampur-tiraha-firing-two-ex-constables-held-guilty-of-rape-5823936.html); [prashantnews.com](https://www.prashantnews.com/rampur-tiraha-case-two-pac-cops-sentenced-to-life-imprisonment/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-016)

## CBI v. Railway Protection Force Head Constable (then HC) (t2-13-011)

**Record:** t2-13-011
**Title:** CBI v. Railway Protection Force Head Constable (then HC)
**Court:** Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), CBI Court No. 4, Lucknow (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Railway Protection Force Head Constable (then HC)
**Conviction:** 18 January 2025
**Incident date:** 2014-12-11 (2014)
**Place:** Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (then HC), Railway Protection Force (RPF), Post Mirzapur, District Mirzapur
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 4 years + fine Rs 2,00,000

The CBI Court Lucknow sentenced RPF Head Constable to 4 years' RI with Rs 2 lakh fine for demanding Rs 30,000 from a Mirzapur railway-station stall operator and threatening to shut the stall and foist a false case on non-payment. The CBI trapped him red-handed accepting Rs 15,000 part-payment on 11.12.2014 and chargesheeted him within weeks. RPF is a railway police force; included as police personnel per broad construction.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/Njc2Nw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-011)

## State v. Lucknow Police Constable (dismissed), UP Police (t2-18-008)

**Record:** t2-18-008
**Title:** State v. Lucknow Police Constable (dismissed), UP Police
**Court:** Court of Sessions Judge, Lucknow (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Lucknow Police Constable (dismissed), UP Police
**Conviction:** 17 September 2026
**Incident date:** 2018-09-29 (2018)
**Place:** Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304 Part II
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable (dismissed), UP Police, Lucknow Police (Gomti Nagar)
**Victims:** Lucknow man
**Sentence:** 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 20,000 under Section 304 Part II IPC; two months' further imprisonment in default of payment. Sentencing order dated 21 September 2026; detention already undergone is set off.

The Court of Sessions Judge, Lucknow convicted a police constable on 17 September 2026 under Section 304 Part II IPC for the fatal shooting of a Lucknow man during a patrol stop in Gomti Nagar Vistar on the intervening night of 28-29 September 2018. The court found that firing the lethal shot exceeded lawful private defence and official authority; a second constable was acquitted. The separate order of 21 September imposed 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 20,000 fine, with two months' further imprisonment in default, and set off detention already undergone. The conviction and sentence are now verified against the court's own documents; a later appeal outcome has not been verified.

**Sources (5):** [lucknow.dcourts.gov.in](https://lucknow.dcourts.gov.in/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?es_ajax_request=1&action=get_order_pdf&input_strings=eyJjaW5vIjoiVVBMSzAxMDAxODQ3MjAxOSIsIm9yZGVyX25vIjoxLCJvcmRlcl9kYXRlIjoiMjAyNi0wOS0xNyJ9); [lucknow.dcourts.gov.in](https://lucknow.dcourts.gov.in/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?es_ajax_request=1&action=get_order_pdf&input_strings=eyJjaW5vIjoiVVBMSzAxMDAxODQ3MjAxOSIsIm9yZGVyX25vIjoyLCJvcmRlcl9kYXRlIjoiMjAyNi0wOS0yMSJ9); [amarujala.com](https://www.amarujala.com/lucknow/apple-manager-murder-case-constable-convicted-of-culpable-homicide-second-accused-acquitted-wife-kalpana-up-2026-09-17); [hindustantimes.com](https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/exconstable-sentenced-to-10-years-imprisonment-in-apple-executive-s-killing-101790011186854.html); [indianexpress.com](https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/apple-executive-vivek-tiwari-murder-lucknow-2018-eight-years-later-justice-10887774/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Unknown

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-18-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-18-008)

## State v \[name withheld\], Sessions Trial No. 50/2005 (Case Crime No. 455/2004, PS Rishikesh) (t2w4-19-002)

**Record:** t2w4-19-002
**Title:** State v \[name withheld\], Sessions Trial No. 50/2005 (Case Crime No. 455/2004, PS Rishikesh)
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Dehradun (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v \[name withheld\], Sessions Trial No. 50/2005 (Case Crime No. 455/2004, PS Rishikesh)
**Conviction:** 6 September 2006
**Incident date:** 2004-11-15 (2004)
**Place:** Dehradun, Uttarakhand
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302 r/w 34; Arms Act 1959 s.27(1)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, Police Station Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Police
**Victims:** Dehradun woman
**Sentence:** Imprisonment for life

The Sessions Judge, Dehradun (S.T. No. 50/2005) convicted Head Constable of PS Rishikesh on 06.09.2006 for the 15.11.2004 shooting of woman co-passenger a Dehradun woman during a vehicle interception near the IDPL Gate on suspicion of liquor smuggling (Case Crime No. 455/2004), sentencing him to life imprisonment under s.302 r/w s.34 IPC and s.27(1) of the Arms Act while acquitting three constables. The Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital confirmed the conviction on 27.12.2012 (Crl. Appeals 217-218/2006); the convict's Supreme Court appeal abated on his death (2025 INSC 114, decided 28.01.2025), leaving the High Court confirmation standing.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191647839/); [research.grhari.com](https://research.grhari.com/supreme-court-overturns-high-court-conviction-in-police-firing-case-surendra-singh-ors-vs-state-of-uttarakhand-2025-insc-114/); [devdiscourse.com](https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3242909-supreme-court-overturns-life-sentences-for-three-uttarakhand-policemen-in-2004-murder-case)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w4-19-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w4-19-002)

## CBI v. Uttarakhand Police Constable (t2w2-13-007)

**Record:** t2w2-13-007
**Title:** CBI v. Uttarakhand Police Constable
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Dehradun (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. Uttarakhand Police Constable
**Conviction:** 8 June 2012
**Incident date:** 1994-10-03 (1994)
**Place:** Dehradun, Uttarakhand
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 304; IPC 308; IPC 201; IPC 34
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Uttarakhand Police (then UP Police); Constable, Uttarakhand Police (then UP Police); Constable, Uttarakhand Police (then UP Police); Constable (PSO), Uttarakhand Police (then UP Police)
**Victims:** Dehradun man; Dehradun man; Dehradun man
**Sentence:** 7 years RI + Rs.15,000 fine each; Rs.20,000 compensation to deceased victim, Rs.10,000 each to two injured; co-accused politician acquitted

The Special Judge for CBI Cases at Dehradun on 8 June 2012 convicted four then-constables — \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\], \[name withheld\] and \[name withheld\] — and sentenced each to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for opening fire from a politician's Karanpur rooftop on unarmed Uttarakhand-statehood agitators on 3 October 1994, killing a Dehradun man and grievously injuring a Dehradun man and a Dehradun man, then cleaning their firearms with hot water and replacing fired cartridges to destroy evidence. The CBI had registered the case on 25 January 1995 on Allahabad High Court orders and chargesheeted the four plus the politician on 6 April 1996; the politician was acquitted.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/MzkwMw==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-13-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-13-007)

## CBI vs Dehradun Police Inspector (t2-08-004)

**Record:** t2-08-004
**Title:** CBI vs Dehradun Police Inspector
**Court:** Special CBI Judge J.P.S. Malik, CBI Court, Delhi (Tis Hazari) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** CBI vs Dehradun Police Inspector
**Conviction:** 9 June 2014
**Incident date:** 2009-07-03 (2009)
**Place:** Dehradun, Uttarakhand
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** fake encounter extrajudicial killing
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 364; IPC 120B; IPC 201; IPC 218
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Dehradun Police (Dalanwala); Sub-Inspector, Dehradun Police; Sub-Inspector, Dehradun Police; Sub-Inspector, Dehradun Police; Sub-Inspector, Dehradun Police; Sub-Inspector, Dehradun Police; Constable, Dehradun Police; Constable, Dehradun Police; Constable, Dehradun Police; Constable, Dehradun Police; Constable, Dehradun Police; Constable, Dehradun Police; Constable, Dehradun Police; Constable, Dehradun Police; Constable, Dehradun Police; Constable, Dehradun Police; Constable, Dehradun Police; Head Operator, City Control Room, Dehradun Police
**Victims:** Dehradun man, age 22
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment to 17 (sentenced 9 June 2014; court held case not rarest-of-rare); \[name withheld\] convicted u/s 218 only and granted bail

Special CBI Judge J.P.S. Malik convicted 17 Uttarakhand policemen for gunning down 22-year-old MBA student a Dehradun man in a staged encounter near Dehradun on 3 July 2009 after branding him an extortionist; the prosecution proved the crime scene was doctored. Seven were convicted of substantive murder and ten of conspiracy/kidnapping-to-murder; all 17 drew life terms on 9 June 2014, while control-room operator \[name withheld\] was convicted only of falsifying records. The Supreme Court had transferred the trial from Dehradun to Delhi on the father's plea.

**Sources (9):** [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/dehradun-fake-encounter-case-17-policemen-awarded-life-imprisonment); [en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Dehradun_encounter_case); [sambadenglish.com](https://sambadenglish.com/dehradun-fake-encounter-cbi-demands-death-guilty-policemen/); [ummid.com](https://ummid.com/news/2014/June/06.06.2014/uttarkhand-police-in-murder-case.html); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a7ee7484a93265483d9fe1f); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/delhi-hc-upholds-conviction-seven-policemen-encounter-killing-youth-uttarakhand-read-judgment/); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/dehradun-fake-encounter-case-17-policemen-awarded-life-imprisonment); [livelaw.in](https://www.livelaw.in/delhi-hc-upholds-conviction-seven-policemen-encounter-killing-youth-uttarakhand-read-judgment/); [livemint.com](https://www.livemint.com/Politics/HorgFHjlieiGbljkIBNLVK/Uttarakhand-fake-encounter-17-policemen-get-life-imprisonme.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-08-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-08-004)

## State v. Uttarakhand Police Head Constable (No. 41 AP) (t2w2-12-014)

**Record:** t2w2-12-014
**Title:** State v. Uttarakhand Police Head Constable (No. 41 AP)
**Court:** Magistrate court, Haridwar jurisdiction (exact court unstated in appellate judgment; probation bonds ordered before 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar) (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Uttarakhand Police Head Constable (No. 41 AP)
**Conviction:** 24 December 2014
**Incident date:** 2005-08-12 (2005)
**Place:** Haridwar, Uttarakhand
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 223
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable (No. 41 AP), Uttarakhand Police (escort party, Haldwani to Dehradun); Constable, Uttarakhand Police (escort party)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** 3 months simple imprisonment + Rs 500 fine each

The trial court on 24 December 2014 convicted \[name withheld\] and fellow escort constables under IPC section 223 for negligently allowing undertrial Gulzar Khan to escape with handcuffs after the escort party fell asleep in the train from Haldwani to Dehradun on 12 August 2005, an FIR lodged by \[name withheld\] himself; each drew 3 months' simple imprisonment and a Rs 500 fine. On 7 January 2015 the Uttarakhand High Court (U.C. Dhyani, J., Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2015) affirmed the convictions but released the appellants on probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, with section 12 removing disqualification. CAVEAT: exact trial court name and co-appellant names not stated in the appellate judgment.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/254454/head-constable-41-ap-puran-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-uttarakhand-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-12-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-12-014)

## State of Uttarakhand v. Uttarakhand Police Constable (t2w3-21-005)

**Record:** t2w3-21-005
**Title:** State of Uttarakhand v. Uttarakhand Police Constable
**Court:** Trial Court (Magistrate), Haridwar jurisdiction — Criminal Case No. 8747 of 2018 (exact magistrate designation not stated in appellate record; appeal lay before the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar) (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** State of Uttarakhand v. Uttarakhand Police Constable
**Conviction:** 2 August 2018
**Incident date:** 2003-07-25 (2003)
**Place:** Haridwar, Uttarakhand
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 223
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Uttarakhand Police (escort party; Probation Officer report from Tehri Garhwal)
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Fine of Rs 2,000 by the trial court; appellate court dismissed the appeal; High Court on revision released him on probation of good conduct for six months

Per the Uttarakhand High Court revision judgment, Constable was convicted under IPC s.223 by the trial court (Criminal Case No. 8747 of 2018, judgment 02-08-2018) for negligently allowing accused \[name withheld\] to escape from police custody at the railway station on 25-07-2003 while being escorted back after production before the Special Judge (Gangster Act), and was fined Rs 2,000 (acquitted of s.224). His appeal was dismissed by the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar on 03-12-2022; on revision the High Court on 23-08-2023 released him on six months' probation of good conduct with s.12 of the Probation of Offenders Act to apply. Exact magistrate-court designation of the trial court is not stated in the appellate record.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1174742/constable-rakshpal-singh-appellant-hash-state-of-uttarakhand-respondent/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-21-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-21-005)

## State v. Uttarakhand Police Constable (t2w3-37-003)

**Record:** t2w3-37-003
**Title:** State v. Uttarakhand Police Constable
**Court:** Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar (Criminal Case No. 8747 of 2018; appeal lay before Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar) (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** State v. Uttarakhand Police Constable
**Conviction:** 2 August 2018
**Incident date:** 2003-07-25 (2003)
**Place:** Haridwar, Uttarakhand
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 223
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Uttarakhand Police (escort party producing undertrial before Special Judge (Gangster Act))
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Rs.2,000 fine by trial court; on criminal revision (23.08.2023) conviction findings left intact, sentence altered to release on probation of good conduct for six months (bond Rs.30,000 with one surety)

The Uttarakhand High Court records that Constable, whose escort party lost undertrial Vishwas Pandit at the railway station on 25.07.2003 after production before the Special Judge (Gangster Act), was convicted under Section 223 IPC (acquitted under Section 224 IPC) by the Haridwar magistrate court on 02.08.2018 and fined Rs.2,000. The conviction was upheld on appeal (03.12.2022); on revision the court kept the findings intact but substituted a six-month probation bond.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40497626/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w3-37-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w3-37-003)

## Sessions Trial No.4 of 1980 (appeal: Criminal App. No.280 of 1980, 89 CWN 128) (t2w2-11-024)

**Record:** t2w2-11-024
**Title:** Sessions Trial No.4 of 1980 (appeal: Criminal App. No.280 of 1980, 89 CWN 128)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Asansol (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Trial No.4 of 1980 (appeal: Criminal App. No.280 of 1980, 89 CWN 128)
**Conviction:** 27 November 1984
**Incident date:** 1975-09-11 (1975)
**Place:** Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** disproportionate force
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 302; IPC 324
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sentry Constable, Cokeoven Police Station, Durgapur, Burdwan
**Victims:** Paschim Bardhaman man
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment + Rs.500 fine (6 months RI in default) u/s 302; 3 years RI + Rs.100 fine (3 months RI in default) u/s 324; concurrent

The Additional Sessions Judge, Asansol convicted sentry constable of Cokeoven police station, Durgapur for firing his rifle at driver \[name withheld\] inside the duty officer's room at 9:30 PM on 11 September 1975, killing him instantaneously (Sessions Trial No.4 of 1980). The court sentenced him to life imprisonment with a Rs.500 fine for murder plus 3 years RI for hurt, concurrent, and the Calcutta High Court dismissed his appeal on 27 November 1984.

**Sources (1):** [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/835535/nimdhari-singh-appellant-hash-state-respondent/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-11-024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-11-024)

## State v. West Bengal Police Armed Constable (t2w2-11-023)

**Record:** t2w2-11-023
**Title:** State v. West Bengal Police Armed Constable
**Court:** Sessions Judge, Raiganj (exact designation not stated in appellate judgment) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State v. West Bengal Police Armed Constable
**Conviction:** 13 May 1998
**Incident date:** 1995-10-26 (1995)
**Place:** Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 363; IPC 366; IPC 376; IPC 302; IPC 201
**Officers (gated display forms):** Armed Constable, 4th Armed Battalion, West Bengal Police, Raiganj
**Victims:** Uttar Dinajpur girl, age 10
**Sentence:** Trial court: death sentence under s.302 IPC (no separate sentences for other counts); on appeal (13 May 1998) conviction affirmed, death commuted to imprisonment for life

The Sessions Judge convicted armed constable of the 4th Armed Battalion at Raiganj for kidnapping, raping and strangling 10-year-old \[name withheld\] on 26 October 1995 and throwing her body in a pond, sentencing him to death under section 302 IPC. The Calcutta High Court on 13 May 1998 affirmed the conviction on all counts (ss.363/366/376/302/201) but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, holding the unpremeditated crime was not rarest-of-rare.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1987194/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/850229/sri-ashim-dutta-alias-nilu-appellant-hash-state-of-west-bengal-respondent/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-11-023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-11-023)

## Sessions Trial No.1(1) of 1993 (Sessions Case No.23(77) of 1992), Phool Bagan PS case (t2w2-11-036)

**Record:** t2w2-11-036
**Title:** Sessions Trial No.1(1) of 1993 (Sessions Case No.23(77) of 1992), Phool Bagan PS case
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Alipore (Sri M.K. Sengupta) (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sessions Trial No.1(1) of 1993 (Sessions Case No.23(77) of 1992), Phool Bagan PS case
**Conviction:** 21 May 2002
**Incident date:** 1992-09-23 (1992)
**Place:** Kolkata, West Bengal
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 376; IPC 366
**Officers (gated display forms):** Special Constable, Phool Bagan Police Station, Kolkata Police
**Victims:** Kolkata woman, age 27
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment (s.376) + 6 years RI and Rs.1,000 fine (s.366; 5 months RI in default), concurrent (sentence dated 4 September 1993)

The Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Alipore convicted Special Constable of Phool Bagan police station for abducting \[name withheld\] from her CIT Road pavement jhupri in a police van at about 2 AM on 23 September 1992 and raping her inside the police station, sentencing him to life imprisonment plus 6 years RI concurrent on 3-4 September 1993. The Calcutta High Court dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence on 21 May 2002, while acquitting co-convicts Bholanath Ojha (police-van driver) and Sanatan Murmu of the section 366 charge for want of mens rea.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/536057/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2w2-11-036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2w2-11-036)

## CBI v. West Bengal Police Officer-in-Charge (then OC) (t2-13-018)

**Record:** t2-13-018
**Title:** CBI v. West Bengal Police Officer-in-Charge (then OC)
**Court:** Additional District Judge, Purulia (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** CBI v. West Bengal Police Officer-in-Charge (then OC)
**Conviction:** 22 February 2023
**Incident date:** 1998-02-16 (1998)
**Place:** Purulia, West Bengal
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial torture
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Officer-in-Charge (then OC), PS Barabazar, Purulia, West Bengal Police
**Victims:** Purulia man
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment 5 years (fine, if any, unstated)

The Additional District Judge, Purulia sentenced Barabazar Officer-in-\[name withheld\] to 5 years' RI for the brutal custodial torture of a Purulia man, who committed suicide on 16.02.1998 in Purulia district jail's cell block as a consequence. The CBI took over FIR 5/98 on Calcutta High Court orders, chargesheeted Roy in 2001, and the trial examined 46 prosecution witnesses with 75 exhibits. Conviction found by the trial court; PR dated 22.02.2023 is treated as the sentence date.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/NTUzOQ==)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-13-018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-13-018)

## State of Madhya Pradesh through Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2s-mp-001)

**Record:** t2s-mp-001
**Title:** State of Madhya Pradesh through Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Dhar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State of Madhya Pradesh through Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta v. Madhya Pradesh Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** 29 August 2025
**Incident date:** 2017-09-19 (2017)
**Place:** Dhar, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Manavar, District Dhar (on deputation from Madhya Pradesh Police)
**Victims:** Dhar man
**Sentence:** Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-; default stipulation of additional 2 months RI for each offence; sentences to run concurrently

The Special Judge convicted an Assistant Sub-Inspector posted at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Manavar, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.10,000 from a complainant for renewal of a trading license. The trial court found the demand and acceptance proved through trap proceedings, recovery of tainted currency notes, and positive phenolphthalein test. The High Court later suspended the sentence pending appeal on 17 December 2025.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37338409/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2s-mp-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2s-mp-001)

## State vs Kashmir Police J&K Police officer (rank not specified in opened sources) (t2s-jk-001)

**Record:** t2s-jk-001
**Title:** State vs Kashmir Police J&K Police officer (rank not specified in opened sources)
**Court:** Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Handwara (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State vs Kashmir Police J&K Police officer (rank not specified in opened sources)
**Conviction:** 24 October 2025
**Incident date:** 2019-07-12 (2019)
**Place:** Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 8/21 NDPS Act; 489-C RPC
**Officers (gated display forms):** J&K Police officer (rank not specified in opened sources), Jammu and Kashmir Police
**Victims:** Kupwara resident
**Sentence:** 11 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000; in default of fine, further 6 months imprisonment

The Additional Sessions Judge, Handwara convicted a serving Jammu and Kashmir Police constable for heroin trafficking and possession of counterfeit currency. On 12 July 2019, a police naka party at Watayen intercepted a Santro car driven by the accused and recovered approximately 750 grams of heroin concealed in the car's air filter. A subsequent search at his residence yielded an additional 40 grams of heroin and counterfeit currency worth approximately Rs. 7.5 lakh bearing markings "Manoranjan Bank" and "Children Bank of India". The court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act and Section 489-C of the Ranbir Penal Code, describing his conduct as a grave breach of duty and public trust. The conviction was pronounced on 23 October 2025 and sentence on 24 October 2025.

**Sources (2):** [kashmirlife.net](https://kashmirlife.net/jammu-kashmir-ex-policeman-convicted-in-heroin-and-counterfeit-currency-case-410531); [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160400762/)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2s-jk-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2s-jk-001)

## \[name withheld\] etc vs UT of Chandigarh (t2s-ch-001)

**Record:** t2s-ch-001
**Title:** \[name withheld\] etc vs UT of Chandigarh
**Court:** Punjab and Haryana High Court (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** \[name withheld\] etc vs UT of Chandigarh
**Conviction:** 9 December 2025
**Incident date:** 2003-01-30 (2003)
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 68 of the Excise Act
**Officers (gated display forms):** Head Constable, PCR Vehicle No. CH-01-G-0156, Chandigarh; Constable, PCR Vehicle No. CH-01-G-0156, Chandigarh
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Released on probation on probation bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with costs of Rs. 500/- each, as imposed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh judgment dated 14.01.2006; revision dismissed 09.12.2025

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh convicted the two PCR policemen under Section 68 of the Excise Act by judgment dated 14.01.2006 and released them on probation. The High Court recorded that the officers were on PCR Vehicle No. CH-01-G-0156 when liquor was found after a wireless message to police post PGI. The High Court held that no ground for interference was made out. The High Court dismissed the revision and maintained the conviction.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106118334/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2s-ch-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2s-ch-001)

## State v. Kerala Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (t2-20261006-001)

**Record:** t2-20261006-001
**Title:** State v. Kerala Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thalassery (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Kerala Police Assistant Sub-Inspector
**Conviction:** date not stated; official PDF dated 19 August 2026; release index dated 20 August 2026; exact judgment date not stated
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Wayanad, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Assistant Sub-Inspector, Circle Inspector office, Pulppalli, Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Seven years of imprisonment across counts and Rs 50,000 fine, as reported by VACB; count-wise terms and effective maximum term not stated.

Kerala VACB records that the Thalassery Vigilance Court convicted a former Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Pulppalli Circle Inspector's office for accepting a Rs 10,000 bribe after threatening to add a Gudalur complainant to a kidnapping case registered against a relative in 2016. The release describes a Rs 30,000 demand and acceptance of the first instalment in a vigilance trap. It reports seven years of imprisonment across statutory counts and a Rs 50,000 fine, but gives no count-wise terms or concurrency direction. The PDF is dated 19 August 2026 while the official release index lists 20 August; neither date is coded as the exact conviction date. Later appeal outcome is unverified.

**Sources (1):** [vigilance.kerala.gov.in](https://vigilance.kerala.gov.in/storage/pressreleases/hfnW1UpbGTanxOgQf9wbOpcS6VoOfIH3lSVKKc08.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Unknown

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-20261006-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-20261006-001)

## State v. Kerala Police Senior Civil Police Officer (t2-20261006-002)

**Record:** t2-20261006-002
**Title:** State v. Kerala Police Senior Civil Police Officer
**Court:** Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kollam (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** State v. Kerala Police Senior Civil Police Officer
**Conviction:** date not stated; official release dated 1 April 2026; exact judgment date not stated
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pathanamthitta, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Officers (gated display forms):** Senior Civil Police Officer, Pathanamthitta Police Station (later Malakkappara Police Station), Kerala Police
**Victims:** Not stated
**Sentence:** Seven years of rigorous imprisonment across counts and Rs 20,000 fine, as reported by VACB; count-wise terms and effective maximum term not stated.

Kerala VACB records that the Kollam Vigilance Court convicted a Senior Civil Police Officer, formerly at Pathanamthitta police station and later at Malakkappara, for accepting Rs 10,000 to submit a final report favourable to a complainant accused in a 2014 case. The release describes a Rs 20,000 demand and acceptance of the first instalment in a vigilance trap. It reports seven years of rigorous imprisonment across counts and a Rs 20,000 fine. The count-wise terms, concurrency and effective maximum are not stated. The official release is dated 1 April 2026; the exact conviction date and later appeal outcome remain unverified.

**Sources (1):** [vigilance.kerala.gov.in](https://vigilance.kerala.gov.in/storage/pressreleases/cp9FWOm3GQbvAiPbONoC0zj9i0Sz3ofiWNoNvp0A.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Unknown

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-20261006-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-20261006-002)

## State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Arunachal Pradesh Police Police personnel (rank not stated) (t2-20261006-003)

**Record:** t2-20261006-003
**Title:** State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Arunachal Pradesh Police Police personnel (rank not stated)
**Court:** Court of District and Sessions Judge, Yupia, Papum Pare (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Arunachal Pradesh Police Police personnel (rank not stated)
**Conviction:** 26 August 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated (2009)
**Place:** Upper Subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh
**Category:** Violence & unlawful detention
**Sub-category:** custodial rape sexual assault
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC 376 read with IPC 109
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police personnel, Daporijo Police Station, Arunachal Pradesh Police
**Victims:** Upper Subansiri man; Upper Subansiri woman
**Sentence:** Life imprisonment and Rs 25,000 fine for abetment of rape under IPC 376 read with 109; three months' further simple imprisonment in default of payment. Sentence imposed on 14 September 2026; detention already undergone is set off under CrPC 428.

The District and Sessions Judge, Yupia convicted one police personnel from Daporijo police station on 26 August 2026 for abetment of rape under IPC 376 read with 109. The court found that two minors were taken to the police station, assaulted and forced to perform a sexual act that was recorded and circulated; two co-accused were acquitted. On 14 September 2026 the court imposed life imprisonment and a Rs 25,000 fine, with three months of further simple imprisonment in default, and set off detention already undergone. The FIR was registered in 2011, but the judgment places the incident in 2009 and gives inconsistent exact dates. The August conviction and September sentence are kept separate; later appeal outcome is unverified. All officer and minor identities are withheld.

**Sources (2):** [yupia.dcourts.gov.in](https://yupia.dcourts.gov.in/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?es_ajax_request=1&action=get_order_pdf&input_strings=eyJjaW5vIjoiQVJQUDAxMDAwMDYwMjAxMyIsIm9yZGVyX25vIjoxOCwib3JkZXJfZGF0ZSI6IjIwMjYtMDgtMjYifQ=); [yupia.dcourts.gov.in](https://yupia.dcourts.gov.in/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?es_ajax_request=1&action=get_order_pdf&input_strings=eyJjaW5vIjoiQVJQUDAxMDAwMDYwMjAxMyIsIm9yZGVyX25vIjoyMCwib3JkZXJfZGF0ZSI6IjIwMjYtMDktMTQifQ=)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Unknown

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open t2-20261006-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/t2-20261006-003)

## Visakhapatnam Enforcement Officer convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam (2017) (bx-r6-cbi-01-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-01-003
**Title:** Visakhapatnam Enforcement Officer convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam (2017)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Visakhapatnam Enforcement Officer convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam (2017)
**Conviction:** 7 September 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), Visakhapatnam district
**Sentence:** 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 4,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam convicted an Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), Visakhapatnam district, on 7 September 2017. The conviction was for bribery, under 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 4,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180309/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2017-09-07-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2017-09-07-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-01-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-01-003)

## East Delhi Dark Room Assistant convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-02-004)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-02-004
**Title:** East Delhi Dark Room Assistant convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi (2012)
**Court:** Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** East Delhi Dark Room Assistant convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi (2012)
**Conviction:** 19 April 2012
**Incident date:** 1997
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** cheating and forgery (sections as per charge sheet; not itemised in press release)
**Official (gated display forms):** Dark Room Assistant, Government of India Press, Mayapuri, Delhi, East Delhi district
**Sentence:** Three years Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000, as per CBI press release

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi convicted a Dark Room Assistant, Government of India Press, Mayapuri, Delhi, East Delhi district, on 19 April 2012. The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under cheating and forgery (sections as per charge sheet; not itemised in press release). The sentence recorded is: Three years Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000, as per CBI press release. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180314/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-04-19-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-04-19-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-02-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-02-004)

## Bengaluru Urban Superintendent of Service Tax convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-02-006)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-02-006
**Title:** Bengaluru Urban Superintendent of Service Tax convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (\[name withheld\]) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Bengaluru Urban Superintendent of Service Tax convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (2012)
**Conviction:** 31 August 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Superintendent of Service Tax, Commissionerate of Service Tax, Bangalore, Bengaluru Urban district
**Sentence:** 1.5 years Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000, as per CBI press release

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore convicted a Superintendent of Service Tax, Commissionerate of Service Tax, Bangalore, Bengaluru Urban district, on 31 August 2012. The conviction was for bribery, under 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1.5 years Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000, as per CBI press release. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180314/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-08-31-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-08-31-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-02-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-02-006)

## New Delhi Executive Engineer convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (2018) (bx-r6-cbi-04-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-04-001
**Title:** New Delhi Executive Engineer convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (2018)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** New Delhi Executive Engineer convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (2018)
**Conviction:** 21 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), New Delhi district
**Sentence:** three years Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10 Lakh; assets of convict and family members confiscated

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi convicted an Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), New Delhi district, on 21 March 2018. The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income. The sentence recorded is: three years Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10 Lakh; assets of convict and family members confiscated. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180324/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-21-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-21-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-04-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-04-001)

## Chennai Appraiser convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, CBI cases, Chennai (2018) (bx-r6-cbi-05-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-05-002
**Title:** Chennai Appraiser convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, CBI cases, Chennai (2018)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI cases, Chennai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Chennai Appraiser convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, CBI cases, Chennai (2018)
**Conviction:** 27 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** IPC s.109; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(e)
**Official (gated display forms):** Appraiser, Air Customs Department, Chennai
**Sentence:** Two years Rigorous Imprisonment; one year RI each to \[name withheld\] (sentences of co-accused omitted); fine: Total fine of Rs.2 lakh imposed on the three accused; assets of Rs.1,55,18,048 ordered confiscated

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI cases, Chennai convicted an Appraiser, Air Customs Department, Chennai, on 27 March 2018. The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under IPC s.109; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(e). The sentence recorded is: Two years Rigorous Imprisonment; one year RI each to \[name withheld\] (sentences of co-accused omitted); fine: Total fine of Rs.2 lakh imposed on the three accused; assets of Rs.1,55,18,048 ordered confiscated. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180401/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-27-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-27-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-05-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-05-002)

## New Delhi Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018) (bx-r6-cbi-08-004)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-08-004
**Title:** New Delhi Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** New Delhi Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018)
**Conviction:** 4 January 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC; Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, New Delhi district
**Sentence:** Five years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. five lakh; fine: Rs. five lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi convicted a Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, New Delhi district, on 4 January 2018. The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 120-B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC; Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Five years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. five lakh; fine: Rs. five lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180108/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-3.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-3.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-08-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-08-004)

## New Delhi official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018) (bx-r6-cbi-08-005)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-08-005
**Title:** New Delhi official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** New Delhi official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018)
**Conviction:** 4 January 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC; Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, New Delhi district
**Sentence:** Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. two lakh; fine: Rs. two lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi convicted an official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, New Delhi district, on 4 January 2018. The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 120-B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC; Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. two lakh; fine: Rs. two lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180108/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-3.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-3.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-08-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-08-005)

## New Delhi official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018) (bx-r6-cbi-08-006)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-08-006
**Title:** New Delhi official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** New Delhi official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018)
**Conviction:** 4 January 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC; Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, New Delhi district
**Sentence:** Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. two lakh; fine: Rs. two lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi convicted an official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, New Delhi district, on 4 January 2018. The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 120-B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC; Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. two lakh; fine: Rs. two lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180108/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-3.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-3.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-08-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-08-006)

## New Delhi official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018) (bx-r6-cbi-08-007)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-08-007
**Title:** New Delhi official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** New Delhi official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018)
**Conviction:** 4 January 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC; Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, New Delhi district
**Sentence:** Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. two lakh; fine: Rs. two lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi convicted an official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, New Delhi district, on 4 January 2018. The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 120-B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC; Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. two lakh; fine: Rs. two lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180108/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-3.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-3.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-08-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-08-007)

## New Delhi official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018) (bx-r6-cbi-08-008)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-08-008
**Title:** New Delhi official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** New Delhi official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2018)
**Conviction:** 4 January 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC; Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, New Delhi district
**Sentence:** Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. two lakh; fine: Rs. two lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi convicted an official, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi, New Delhi district, on 4 January 2018. The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 120-B r/w 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC; Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. two lakh; fine: Rs. two lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180108/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-3.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-3.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-08-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-08-008)

## New Delhi Director convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (2017) (bx-r6-cbi-09-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-09-001
**Title:** New Delhi Director convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (2017)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** New Delhi Director convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (2017)
**Conviction:** 18 April 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Director (ERU) (Indian Economic Service, 1981 batch), Department of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi
**Sentence:** Four years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.25 lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi convicted a Director (ERU) (Indian Economic Service, 1981 batch), Department of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi, on 18 April 2017. The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income. The sentence recorded is: Four years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.25 lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180130/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2017-04-18-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2017-04-18-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-09-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-09-001)

## Ernakulam Deputy Commissioner of Customs convicted of bribery, Special Judge-III, CBI Cases, Ernakulam (2017) (bx-r6-cbi-09-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-09-002
**Title:** Ernakulam Deputy Commissioner of Customs convicted of bribery, Special Judge-III, CBI Cases, Ernakulam (2017)
**Court:** Special Judge-III, CBI Cases, Ernakulam (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ernakulam Deputy Commissioner of Customs convicted of bribery, Special Judge-III, CBI Cases, Ernakulam (2017)
**Conviction:** 5 May 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ernakulam, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Nedumbassery Airport, Ernakulam
**Sentence:** One year Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.60 lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge-III, CBI Cases, Ernakulam convicted a Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Nedumbassery Airport, Ernakulam, on 5 May 2017. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: One year Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.60 lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180130/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2017-05-05-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2017-05-05-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-09-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-09-002)

## Chandigarh Zonal Director convicted of bribery, Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh (2017) (bx-r6-cbi-09-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-09-003
**Title:** Chandigarh Zonal Director convicted of bribery, Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh (2017)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Chandigarh Zonal Director convicted of bribery, Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh (2017)
**Conviction:** 28 September 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chandigarh, Chandigarh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh
**Sentence:** Four years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. Two Lakh; fine: Rs. Two Lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh convicted a Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh, on 28 September 2017. The conviction was for bribery, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Four years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. Two Lakh; fine: Rs. Two Lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180130/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2017-09-28-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2017-09-28-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-09-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-09-003)

## East Delhi LDC convicted of fraud or misappropriation, ACMM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-10-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-10-003
**Title:** East Delhi LDC convicted of fraud or misappropriation, ACMM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (2013)
**Court:** ACMM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** East Delhi LDC convicted of fraud or misappropriation, ACMM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (2013)
**Conviction:** 1 March 2013
**Incident date:** 1983
**Place:** East Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472 IPC (case registered and charge-sheeted under; conviction sections itemised only as cheating and forgery)
**Official (gated display forms):** LDC, Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Urban Development, East Delhi district
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 20,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the ACMM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi convicted an LDC, Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Urban Development, East Delhi district, on 1 March 2013. The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472 IPC (case registered and charge-sheeted under; conviction sections itemised only as cheating and forgery). The sentence recorded is: 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 20,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-03-01-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-03-01-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-10-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-10-003)

## Mumbai Additional Commissioner of Income Tax convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-11-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-11-001
**Title:** Mumbai Additional Commissioner of Income Tax convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Mumbai Additional Commissioner of Income Tax convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (2013)
**Conviction:** 26 March 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai district
**Sentence:** Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai convicted an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai district, on 26 March 2013. The conviction was for bribery, under Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-03-26-3.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-03-26-3.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-11-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-11-001)

## Guwahati Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, N.F. Railway, Guwahati convicted of misconduct, Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-11-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-11-002
**Title:** Guwahati Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, N.F. Railway, Guwahati convicted of misconduct, Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati (Assam) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Guwahati Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, N.F. Railway, Guwahati convicted of misconduct, Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati (2013)
**Conviction:** 10 April 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Guwahati, Assam
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, N.F. Railway, Guwahati
**Sentence:** Three years Imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati (Assam) convicted a Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, N.F. Railway, Guwahati on 10 April 2013. The sentence recorded is: Three years Imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-04-10-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-04-10-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-11-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-11-002)

## Hyderabad Welfare Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-12-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-12-001
**Title:** Hyderabad Welfare Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Hyderabad Welfare Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (2013)
**Conviction:** 7 May 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Welfare Inspector, South Central Railway, Hyderabad district
**Sentence:** Three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.25,000 each (Rs.50,000 total; Rs.20,000 of fine to be paid to complainant, per court finding)

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad convicted a Welfare Inspector, South Central Railway, Hyderabad district, on 7 May 2013. The conviction was for bribery, under 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.25,000 each (Rs.50,000 total; Rs.20,000 of fine to be paid to complainant, per court finding). The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-05-07-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-05-07-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-12-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-12-001)

## Patna Junior Engineer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Patna (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-12-005)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-12-005
**Title:** Patna Junior Engineer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Patna (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Patna (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Patna Junior Engineer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Patna (2013)
**Conviction:** 22 May 2013
**Incident date:** 1994
**Place:** Patna, Bihar
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Engineer, Road Construction Department (RCD), Motihari, Patna district
**Sentence:** Five years Rigorous Imprisonment

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Patna convicted a Junior Engineer, Road Construction Department (RCD), Motihari, Patna district, on 22 May 2013. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: Five years Rigorous Imprisonment. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-05-22-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-05-22-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-12-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-12-005)

## Patna Junior Engineer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Patna (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-12-006)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-12-006
**Title:** Patna Junior Engineer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Patna (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Patna (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Patna Junior Engineer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Patna (2013)
**Conviction:** 22 May 2013
**Incident date:** 1994
**Place:** Patna, Bihar
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Engineer, Road Construction Department (RCD), Motihari, Patna district
**Sentence:** Five years Rigorous Imprisonment

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Patna convicted a Junior Engineer, Road Construction Department (RCD), Motihari, Patna district, on 22 May 2013. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: Five years Rigorous Imprisonment. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-05-22-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-05-22-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-12-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-12-006)

## Ranchi Regional Director convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-13-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-13-001
**Title:** Ranchi Regional Director convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Regional Director convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013)
**Conviction:** 31 May 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department (AHD), Dumka, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** six years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 4,00,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi convicted a Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department (AHD), Dumka, Ranchi district, on 31 May 2013. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: six years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 4,00,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-06-03-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-06-03-2.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-13-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-13-001)

## Ranchi TVO convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-13-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-13-002
**Title:** Ranchi TVO convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi TVO convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013)
**Conviction:** 31 May 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** TVO(M), Animal Husbandry Department (DAHO Godda), Ranchi district
**Sentence:** six years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 4,00,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi convicted a TVO(M), Animal Husbandry Department (DAHO Godda), Ranchi district, on 31 May 2013. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: six years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 4,00,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-06-03-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-06-03-2.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-13-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-13-002)

## Ranchi Budget-cum-Accountant Officer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-13-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-13-003
**Title:** Ranchi Budget-cum-Accountant Officer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Budget-cum-Accountant Officer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013)
**Conviction:** 31 May 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Budget-cum-Accountant Officer, Animal Husbandry Department (AHD Patna), Ranchi district
**Sentence:** five years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 2,00,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi convicted a Budget-cum-Accountant Officer, Animal Husbandry Department (AHD Patna), Ranchi district, on 31 May 2013. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: five years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 2,00,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-06-03-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-06-03-2.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-13-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-13-003)

## Ranchi Treasury Officer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-13-004)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-13-004
**Title:** Ranchi Treasury Officer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Treasury Officer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013)
**Conviction:** 31 May 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Treasury Officer, Treasury Office, Godda, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** five years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 2,00,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi convicted a Treasury Officer, Treasury Office, Godda, Ranchi district, on 31 May 2013. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: five years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 2,00,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-06-03-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-06-03-2.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-13-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-13-004)

## Ranchi Accountant convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-13-005)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-13-005
**Title:** Ranchi Accountant convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Accountant convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013)
**Conviction:** 31 May 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Accountant, Treasury Office, Godda, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 1,00,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi convicted an Accountant, Treasury Office, Godda, Ranchi district, on 31 May 2013. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 1,00,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-06-03-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-06-03-2.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-13-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-13-005)

## Ranchi Assistant convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-13-006)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-13-006
**Title:** Ranchi Assistant convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Assistant convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi (2013)
**Conviction:** 31 May 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant, Treasury Office, Godda, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 1,00,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, AHD, Ranchi convicted an Assistant, Treasury Office, Godda, Ranchi district, on 31 May 2013. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 1,00,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-06-03-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-06-03-2.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-13-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-13-006)

## Mumbai Senior Tax Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-13-009)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-13-009
**Title:** Mumbai Senior Tax Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Mumbai Senior Tax Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (2013)
**Conviction:** 26 July 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Tax Assistant, Customs (Preventive), Mumbai
**Sentence:** one year Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: total fine of Rs. 20,500

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai convicted a Senior Tax Assistant, Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, on 26 July 2013. The conviction was for bribery, under 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: one year Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: total fine of Rs. 20,500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-07-26-3.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-07-26-3.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-13-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-13-009)

## Mumbai Tax Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-13-010)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-13-010
**Title:** Mumbai Tax Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Mumbai Tax Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (2013)
**Conviction:** 26 July 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Tax Assistant, Customs (Preventive), Mumbai
**Sentence:** one year Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: total fine of Rs. 20,500

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai convicted a Tax Assistant, Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, on 26 July 2013. The conviction was for bribery, under 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: one year Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: total fine of Rs. 20,500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-07-26-3.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-07-26-3.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-13-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-13-010)

## Chennai Deputy Commissioner convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-13-011)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-13-011
**Title:** Chennai Deputy Commissioner convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Chennai Deputy Commissioner convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai (2013)
**Conviction:** 5 August 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988; Sec. 467, 468, 471 IPC; Sec. 193 IPC (chargesheet)
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chennai
**Sentence:** two years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 25,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai convicted a Deputy Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chennai, on 5 August 2013. The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988; Sec. 467, 468, 471 IPC; Sec. 193 IPC (chargesheet). The sentence recorded is: two years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 25,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also records an acquittal; who it covers is not stated; the source entry also contains acquittal wording near another mention of the name; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-08-05-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-08-05-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-13-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-13-011)

## PS Case No.12/1996) (bx-r6-cbi-15-005)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-005
**Title:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** IAS, then Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar (Finance Department), Ranchi district
**Sentence:** 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.2 lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted an IAS, then Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar (Finance Department), Ranchi district, on 3 October 2013 (PS Case No.12/1996)). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.2 lakh. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-005)

## PS Case No.12/1996) (bx-r6-cbi-15-006)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-006
**Title:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Secretary, AHD, Govt. of Bihar, Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Bihar, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.2 lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted a Secretary, AHD, Govt. of Bihar, Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Bihar, Ranchi district, on 3 October 2013 (PS Case No.12/1996)). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.2 lakh. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-006)

## PS Case No.12/1996) (bx-r6-cbi-15-007)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-007
**Title:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** IAS, then Secretary, AHD, Govt. of Bihar, Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Bihar, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.2 lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted an IAS, then Secretary, AHD, Govt. of Bihar, Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Bihar, Ranchi district, on 3 October 2013 (PS Case No.12/1996)). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.2 lakh. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-007)

## PS Case No.12/1996) (bx-r6-cbi-15-008)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-008
**Title:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** IRS, then Commissioner, Income Tax, Ranchi, Income Tax Department (Commissioner, Ranchi)
**Sentence:** 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.3 lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted an IRS, then Commissioner, Income Tax, Ranchi, Income Tax Department (Commissioner, Ranchi), on 3 October 2013 (PS Case No.12/1996)). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.3 lakh. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-008)

## PS Case No.12/1996) (bx-r6-cbi-15-009)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-009
**Title:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Regional Director, AHD, Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department (Regional Directorate, Ranchi)
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted a Regional Director, AHD, Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department (Regional Directorate, Ranchi), on 3 October 2013 (PS Case No.12/1996)). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-009)

## PS Case No.12/1996) (bx-r6-cbi-15-010)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-010
**Title:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Director, AHD, Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department (Ranchi)
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted an Assistant Director, AHD, Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department (Ranchi), on 3 October 2013 (PS Case No.12/1996)). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-010)

## PS Case No.12/1996) (bx-r6-cbi-15-011)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-011
**Title:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Treasury Officer, Chaibasa, Treasury Office, Chaibasa, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.20 lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted a Treasury Officer, Chaibasa, Treasury Office, Chaibasa, Ranchi district, on 3 October 2013 (PS Case No.12/1996)). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.20 lakh. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-011)

## PS Case No.12/1996) (bx-r6-cbi-15-012)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-012
**Title:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** District Animal Husbandry Officer, Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department (District Office, Ranchi)
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted a District Animal Husbandry Officer, Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department (District Office, Ranchi), on 3 October 2013 (PS Case No.12/1996)). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-012)

## PS Case No.12/1996) (bx-r6-cbi-15-013)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-013
**Title:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Asstt. Poultry Officer, Chaibasa, Animal Husbandry Department (Chaibasa), Ranchi district
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted an Asstt. Poultry Officer, Chaibasa, Animal Husbandry Department (Chaibasa), Ranchi district, on 3 October 2013 (PS Case No.12/1996)). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-013)

## PS Case No.12/1996) (bx-r6-cbi-15-014)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-014
**Title:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** M.V.O., Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department (Ranchi)
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted an M.V.O., Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department (Ranchi), on 3 October 2013 (PS Case No.12/1996)). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-014)

## PS Case No.12/1996) (bx-r6-cbi-15-015)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-015
**Title:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Asstt. Poultry Officer, Chaibasa, Animal Husbandry Department (Chaibasa), Ranchi district
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted an Asstt. Poultry Officer, Chaibasa, Animal Husbandry Department (Chaibasa), Ranchi district, on 3 October 2013 (PS Case No.12/1996)). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-015)

## PS Case No.12/1996) (bx-r6-cbi-15-016)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-016
**Title:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Budget & Accounts Officer, Patna, Animal Husbandry Department (Patna), Ranchi district
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted a Budget & Accounts Officer, Patna, Animal Husbandry Department (Patna), Ranchi district, on 3 October 2013 (PS Case No.12/1996)). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1.5 crore. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-016)

## PS Case No.12/1996) (bx-r6-cbi-15-017)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-017
**Title:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** PS Case No.12/1996)
**Conviction:** 3 October 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** D.A.H.O., AHD, Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department (Ranchi)
**Sentence:** 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.5 lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted a D.A.H.O., AHD, Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department (Ranchi), on 3 October 2013 (PS Case No.12/1996)). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.5 lakh. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-017)

## Ranchi IAS, then Secretary, AHD, Govt. of Bihar convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-15-020)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-020
**Title:** Ranchi IAS, then Secretary, AHD, Govt. of Bihar convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi IAS, then Secretary, AHD, Govt. of Bihar convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi (2013)
**Conviction:** 30 September 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** IAS, then Secretary, AHD, Govt. of Bihar, Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Bihar, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Fine in the range Rs.50,000 to Rs.5 lakh (per-person split not stated in the release)

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi convicted an IAS, then Secretary, AHD, Govt. of Bihar, Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Bihar, Ranchi district, on 30 September 2013. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 477A IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Fine in the range Rs.50,000 to Rs.5 lakh (per-person split not stated in the release). The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also records an acquittal; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-10-03-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-020)

## New Delhi Deputy Legal Advisor, CBI, ACB, Delhi convicted of bribery, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Saket Courts, New Delhi (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-15-021)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-021
**Title:** New Delhi Deputy Legal Advisor, CBI, ACB, Delhi convicted of bribery, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Saket Courts, New Delhi (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Saket Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** New Delhi Deputy Legal Advisor, CBI, ACB, Delhi convicted of bribery, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Saket Courts, New Delhi (2013)
**Conviction:** 11 November 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Legal Advisor (DLA), CBI, ACB, Delhi, Central Bureau of Investigation (Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi), New Delhi district
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1 lakh u/s 7 PC Act and 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1 lakh u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; fine: Rs.1 lakh + Rs.1 lakh (Rs.2 lakh total)

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Saket Courts, New Delhi convicted a Deputy Legal Advisor (DLA), CBI, ACB, Delhi, Central Bureau of Investigation (Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi), New Delhi district, on 11 November 2013. The conviction was for bribery, under 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1 lakh u/s 7 PC Act and 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1 lakh u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; fine: Rs.1 lakh + Rs.1 lakh (Rs.2 lakh total). The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-11-14-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-11-14-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-021)

## Nagpur Head Clerk, DRM Office, Central Railway, Nagpur convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Nagpur (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-15-022)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-022
**Title:** Nagpur Head Clerk, DRM Office, Central Railway, Nagpur convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Nagpur (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge, Nagpur (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Nagpur Head Clerk, DRM Office, Central Railway, Nagpur convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Nagpur (2013)
**Conviction:** 21 November 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nagpur, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988; 468 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Head Clerk, DRM Office, Central Railway, Nagpur, Central Railway (DRM Office, Nagpur)
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.9,000 (total)

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Nagpur convicted a Head Clerk, DRM Office, Central Railway, Nagpur, Central Railway (DRM Office, Nagpur), on 21 November 2013. The conviction was for bribery, under 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988; 468 IPC. The sentence recorded is: 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.9,000 (total). The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-11-21-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-11-21-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-022)

## Delhi official of RCS convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-15-024)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-15-024
**Title:** Delhi official of RCS convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Delhi official of RCS convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi (2013)
**Conviction:** 3 December 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** official of RCS, Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS), Delhi
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.2 lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Rohini, Delhi convicted an official of RCS, Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS), Delhi, on 3 December 2013. The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 120-B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.2 lakh. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-12-03-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-12-03-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-15-024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-15-024)

## Hoshangabad Section Engineer convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Bhopal (2013) (bx-r6-cbi-16-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-16-002
**Title:** Hoshangabad Section Engineer convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Bhopal (2013)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI cases, Bhopal (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Hoshangabad Section Engineer convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Bhopal (2013)
**Conviction:** 30 December 2013
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Section Engineer (Works), West Central Railway, Pipariya, Hoshangabad district
**Sentence:** Three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.10,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI cases, Bhopal convicted a Section Engineer (Works), West Central Railway, Pipariya, Hoshangabad district, on 30 December 2013. The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: Three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180208/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-12-30-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2013-12-30-2.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-16-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-16-002)

## Jabalpur Deputy Chief Personnel Officer convicted of bribery, Special Judge, CBI cases, Jabalpur (2011) (bx-r6-cbi-16-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-16-003
**Title:** Jabalpur Deputy Chief Personnel Officer convicted of bribery, Special Judge, CBI cases, Jabalpur (2011)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI cases, Jabalpur (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Jabalpur Deputy Chief Personnel Officer convicted of bribery, Special Judge, CBI cases, Jabalpur (2011)
**Conviction:** 5 September 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (HQ), West Central Railway, Jabalpur
**Sentence:** Two years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.10,000 (total)

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI cases, Jabalpur convicted a Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (HQ), West Central Railway, Jabalpur, on 5 September 2011. The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: Two years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.10,000 (total). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2011-09-05-3.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2011-09-05-3.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-16-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-16-003)

## Bangalore Sr. Administrative Officer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (2011) (bx-r6-cbi-17-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-17-002
**Title:** Bangalore Sr. Administrative Officer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (2011)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Bangalore Sr. Administrative Officer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (2011)
**Conviction:** 4 November 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore, Karnataka
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Sr. Administrative Officer, National Institute of Rock Mechanics, Kolar (Karnataka), Bangalore district
**Sentence:** 2 years Simple Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 60,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore convicted a Sr. Administrative Officer, National Institute of Rock Mechanics, Kolar (Karnataka), Bangalore district, on 4 November 2011. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 2 years Simple Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 60,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2011-11-04-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2011-11-04-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-17-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-17-002)

## New Delhi UDC convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (2011) (bx-r6-cbi-18-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-18-002
**Title:** New Delhi UDC convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (2011)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** New Delhi UDC convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (2011)
**Conviction:** 14 December 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B r/w 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 r/w 467 IPC; Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** UDC, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi district
**Sentence:** Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years; fine: Rs 2,20,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi convicted a UDC, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi district, on 14 December 2011. The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 120-B r/w 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 r/w 467 IPC; Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years; fine: Rs 2,20,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2011-12-14-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2011-12-14-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-18-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-18-002)

## New Delhi Deputy Director-General convicted of misconduct, Trial Court, New Delhi (2002) (bx-r6-cbi-18-004)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-18-004
**Title:** New Delhi Deputy Director-General convicted of misconduct, Trial Court, New Delhi (2002)
**Court:** Trial Court, New Delhi (CBI case) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** New Delhi Deputy Director-General convicted of misconduct, Trial Court, New Delhi (2002)
**Conviction:** 5 July 2002
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (as printed)
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Director-General, Department of Telecom (DoT), New Delhi district
**Sentence:** 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs 1,00,000 (total)

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Trial Court, New Delhi (CBI case) convicted a Deputy Director-General, Department of Telecom (DoT), New Delhi district, on 5 July 2002. The conviction was under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (as printed). The sentence recorded is: 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs 1,00,000 (total). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2011-12-21-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2011-12-21-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** Upheld on appeal

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-18-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-18-004)

## Ranchi Drawing and Disbursing Officer, DAHO, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-001
**Title:** Ranchi Drawing and Disbursing Officer, DAHO, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Drawing and Disbursing Officer, DAHO, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Drawing and Disbursing Officer, DAHO, Jamshedpur, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** five years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Five lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted a Drawing and Disbursing Officer, DAHO, Jamshedpur, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: five years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Five lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also records an acquittal; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-001)

## Ranchi Assistant Director, Poultry Firm, Golpahari, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-002
**Title:** Ranchi Assistant Director, Poultry Firm, Golpahari, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Assistant Director, Poultry Firm, Golpahari, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Director (Poultry), Poultry Firm, Golpahari, Jamshedpur, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Two lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted an Assistant Director (Poultry), Poultry Firm, Golpahari, Jamshedpur, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Two lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also records an acquittal; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-002)

## Ranchi Manager, Pig Development Unit, Golpahari, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-003
**Title:** Ranchi Manager, Pig Development Unit, Golpahari, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Manager, Pig Development Unit, Golpahari, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Manager (Piggery Firm), Pig Development Unit, Golpahari, Jamshedpur, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Two lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted a Manager (Piggery Firm), Pig Development Unit, Golpahari, Jamshedpur, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Two lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-003)

## Ranchi T.V.O, O/o DAHO, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-004)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-004
**Title:** Ranchi T.V.O, O/o DAHO, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi T.V.O, O/o DAHO, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** T.V.O (Mobile), O/o DAHO, Jamshedpur, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Two lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted a T.V.O (Mobile), O/o DAHO, Jamshedpur, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Two lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-004)

## Ranchi SAHO, Sadar, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-006)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-006
**Title:** Ranchi SAHO, Sadar, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi SAHO, Sadar, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** SAHO, Sadar, Jamshedpur, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Two lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted an SAHO, Sadar, Jamshedpur, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Two lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-006)

## Ranchi Manager, O/o DAHO, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-007)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-007
**Title:** Ranchi Manager, O/o DAHO, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Manager, O/o DAHO, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Manager (Piggery), O/o DAHO, Jamshedpur, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Two lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted a Manager (Piggery), O/o DAHO, Jamshedpur, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Two lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-007)

## Ranchi Treasury Officer, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-008)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-008
**Title:** Ranchi Treasury Officer, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Treasury Officer, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Treasury Officer, Jamshedpur, Jamshedpur, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Two lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted a Treasury Officer, Jamshedpur, Jamshedpur, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Two lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-008)

## Ranchi Head Accountant, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-009)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-009
**Title:** Ranchi Head Accountant, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Head Accountant, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Head Accountant, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Forty thousand

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted a Head Accountant, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Forty thousand. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-009)

## Ranchi Assistant Accountant, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-010)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-010
**Title:** Ranchi Assistant Accountant, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Assistant Accountant, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Accountant, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Forty thousand

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted an Assistant Accountant, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur, Govt. Treasury, Jamshedpur, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Forty thousand. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-010)

## Ranchi Regional Director, South Chhotanagpur Region AHD, Ranchi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-011)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-011
**Title:** Ranchi Regional Director, South Chhotanagpur Region AHD, Ranchi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Regional Director, South Chhotanagpur Region AHD, Ranchi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Regional Director, South Chhotanagpur Region AHD, Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department
**Sentence:** seven years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Six lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted a Regional Director, South Chhotanagpur Region AHD, Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: seven years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Six lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-011)

## Ranchi Regional Director, South Chhotanagpur Region, AHD, Ranchi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-012)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-012
**Title:** Ranchi Regional Director, South Chhotanagpur Region, AHD, Ranchi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Regional Director, South Chhotanagpur Region, AHD, Ranchi convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Regional Director, South Chhotanagpur Region, AHD, Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department
**Sentence:** seven years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Six lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted a Regional Director, South Chhotanagpur Region, AHD, Ranchi, Animal Husbandry Department, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: seven years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Six lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-012)

## Ranchi Assistant Director, South Chhotanagpur Region convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-013)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-013
**Title:** Ranchi Assistant Director, South Chhotanagpur Region convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Assistant Director, South Chhotanagpur Region convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Director (Planning), South Chhotanagpur Region, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** seven years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Six lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted an Assistant Director (Planning), South Chhotanagpur Region, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: seven years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Six lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-013)

## Ranchi Budget & Accounts Officer, AHD, Patna convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-014)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-014
**Title:** Ranchi Budget & Accounts Officer, AHD, Patna convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Budget & Accounts Officer, AHD, Patna convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Budget & Accounts Officer, AHD, Patna, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** seven years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Six lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted a Budget & Accounts Officer, AHD, Patna, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: seven years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Six lakh. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-014)

## Ranchi Assistant in the office of DAHO convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-015)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-015
**Title:** Ranchi Assistant in the office of DAHO convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Assistant in the office of DAHO convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant in the office of DAHO, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Eighty thousand

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted an Assistant in the office of DAHO, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Eighty thousand. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also records an acquittal; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-015)

## Ranchi Accountant in the office of the DAHO convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-016)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-016
**Title:** Ranchi Accountant in the office of the DAHO convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Accountant in the office of the DAHO convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Accountant in the office of the DAHO, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Eighty thousand

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted an Accountant in the office of the DAHO, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Eighty thousand. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-016)

## Ranchi Assistant in the office of DAHO convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-19-017)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-19-017
**Title:** Ranchi Assistant in the office of DAHO convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Ranchi Assistant in the office of DAHO convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi (2012)
**Conviction:** 16 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ranchi, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant in the office of DAHO, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district
**Sentence:** three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Eighty thousand

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, AHD, CBI, Ranchi convicted an Assistant in the office of DAHO, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi district, on 16 January 2012. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.Eighty thousand. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-01-20-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-19-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-19-017)

## Chennai Senior Mechanic convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-20-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-20-003
**Title:** Chennai Senior Mechanic convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Chennai Senior Mechanic convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai (2012)
**Conviction:** 21 June 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Mechanic, Garrison Military Engineering Service, Chennai district
**Sentence:** 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 15,000/-

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai convicted a Senior Mechanic, Garrison Military Engineering Service, Chennai district, on 21 June 2012. The conviction was for bribery, under Section 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 15,000/-. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-06-21-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-06-21-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-20-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-20-003)

## Hubli Medical Superintendent convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-21-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-21-001
**Title:** Hubli Medical Superintendent convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Hubli Medical Superintendent convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (2012)
**Conviction:** 26 July 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Hubli, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Medical Superintendent, Railways (Railway Hospital, Hubli)
**Sentence:** One and a half years Simple Imprisonment; fine: Rs.10,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore convicted a Medical Superintendent, Railways (Railway Hospital, Hubli), on 26 July 2012. The conviction was for bribery, under 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: One and a half years Simple Imprisonment; fine: Rs.10,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-07-26-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-07-26-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-21-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-21-001)

## Jabalpur Superintendent convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-21-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-21-002
**Title:** Jabalpur Superintendent convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Jabalpur Superintendent convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur (2012)
**Conviction:** 27 July 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B IPC; 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Superintendent, Customs & Central Excise (office of Assistant Commissioner, Jabalpur)
**Sentence:** Two years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.11,000 (as printed; release does not state whether per accused or joint)

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur convicted a Superintendent, Customs & Central Excise (office of Assistant Commissioner, Jabalpur), on 27 July 2012. The conviction was for bribery, under 120-B IPC; 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Two years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.11,000 (as printed; release does not state whether per accused or joint). The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-07-27-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-07-27-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-21-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-21-002)

## Jabalpur Excise Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-21-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-21-003
**Title:** Jabalpur Excise Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Jabalpur Excise Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur (2012)
**Conviction:** 27 July 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B IPC; 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Excise Inspector, Customs & Central Excise (office of Assistant Commissioner, Jabalpur)
**Sentence:** Two years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.11,000 (as printed; release does not state whether per accused or joint)

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur convicted an Excise Inspector, Customs & Central Excise (office of Assistant Commissioner, Jabalpur), on 27 July 2012. The conviction was for bribery, under 120-B IPC; 7 PC Act, 1988; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Two years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.11,000 (as printed; release does not state whether per accused or joint). The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-07-27-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-07-27-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-21-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-21-003)

## FIR No. 336/86 (bx-r6-cbi-22-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-22-001
**Title:** FIR No. 336/86
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** FIR No. 336/86
**Conviction:** 30 August 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 304, 323, 342 r/w 34 IPC; 218 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Scientific Officer, Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), New Delhi
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 5,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi convicted a Senior Scientific Officer, Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), New Delhi, on 30 August 2012 (FIR No. 336/86). The conviction was under 304, 323, 342 r/w 34 IPC; 218 IPC. The sentence recorded is: 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 5,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also records an acquittal; who it covers is not stated; the source entry also contains acquittal wording near another mention of the name; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-08-30-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-08-30-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-22-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-22-001)

## New Delhi Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Saket, New Delhi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-22-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-22-002
**Title:** New Delhi Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Saket, New Delhi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Saket, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** New Delhi Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Saket, New Delhi (2012)
**Conviction:** 30 August 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 5(1)(e) r/w 5(2) PC Act, 1947
**Official (gated display forms):** Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sales Tax, Government of NCT, Delhi, New Delhi district
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; confiscation of properties acquired from ill-gotten wealth; fine: Rs. 5,00,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Saket, New Delhi convicted an Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sales Tax, Government of NCT, Delhi, New Delhi district, on 30 August 2012. The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under 5(1)(e) r/w 5(2) PC Act, 1947. The sentence recorded is: 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; confiscation of properties acquired from ill-gotten wealth; fine: Rs. 5,00,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-09-03-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-09-03-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-22-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-22-002)

## Shillong Senior Accountant convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, Shillong (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-22-005)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-22-005
**Title:** Shillong Senior Accountant convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, Shillong (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, Shillong (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Shillong Senior Accountant convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, Shillong (2012)
**Conviction:** 1 October 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Shillong, Meghalaya
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Accountant, Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Shillong
**Sentence:** 3 years simple imprisonment; fine: Rs. 1,00,000 (total)

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Shillong convicted a Senior Accountant, Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Shillong, on 1 October 2012. The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3 years simple imprisonment; fine: Rs. 1,00,000 (total). The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-10-01-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-10-01-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-22-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-22-005)

## New Delhi Managing Director convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-24-005)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-24-005
**Title:** New Delhi Managing Director convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** New Delhi Managing Director convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi (2012)
**Conviction:** 12 December 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Managing Director, Khadigram Udhyog, New Delhi
**Sentence:** five years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. Ten Lakh; fine: Rs. Ten Lakh

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi convicted a Managing Director, Khadigram Udhyog, New Delhi, on 12 December 2012. The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: five years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. Ten Lakh; fine: Rs. Ten Lakh. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in:80/pressreleases/pr_2012-12-12-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-12-12-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-24-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-24-005)

## Puducherry Junior Engineer convicted of bribery, Principal District Judge, Puducherry (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-25-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-25-001
**Title:** Puducherry Junior Engineer convicted of bribery, Principal District Judge, Puducherry (2012)
**Court:** Principal District Judge, Puducherry (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Puducherry Junior Engineer convicted of bribery, Principal District Judge, Puducherry (2012)
**Conviction:** 14 December 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Puducherry, Puducherry
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Puducherry
**Sentence:** five years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 50,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Principal District Judge, Puducherry convicted a Junior Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD), Puducherry, on 14 December 2012. The conviction was for bribery, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: five years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 50,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-12-14-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-12-14-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-25-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-25-001)

## Visakhapatnam Superintendent convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-25-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-25-002
**Title:** Visakhapatnam Superintendent convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Visakhapatnam Superintendent convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam (2012)
**Conviction:** 15 December 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 120-B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC; Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Superintendent, Central Excise, Anakapalli, District Visakhapatnam
**Sentence:** three years Rigorous Imprisonment

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam convicted a Superintendent, Central Excise, Anakapalli, District Visakhapatnam, on 15 December 2012. The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under Section 120-B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC; Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: three years Rigorous Imprisonment. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also records an acquittal; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-12-15-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-12-15-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-25-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-25-002)

## Jabalpur Income Tax Inspector convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-25-006)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-25-006
**Title:** Jabalpur Income Tax Inspector convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Jabalpur Income Tax Inspector convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur (2012)
**Conviction:** 27 December 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Income Tax Inspector, Income Tax Department, Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh), Jabalpur district
**Sentence:** three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 8,50,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur convicted an Income Tax Inspector, Income Tax Department, Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh), Jabalpur district, on 27 December 2012. The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 8,50,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-12-27-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-12-27-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-25-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-25-006)

## Kancheepuram Conversion Assistant Grade-II convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-25-007)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-25-007
**Title:** Kancheepuram Conversion Assistant Grade-II convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Kancheepuram Conversion Assistant Grade-II convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai (2012)
**Conviction:** 27 December 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Conversion Assistant Grade-II, Archaeological Survey of India, Mamallapuram Sub Circle, Kancheepuram District
**Sentence:** two years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 30,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai convicted a Conversion Assistant Grade-II, Archaeological Survey of India, Mamallapuram Sub Circle, Kancheepuram District, on 27 December 2012. The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: two years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 30,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-12-27-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-12-27-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-25-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-25-007)

## Mumbai Senior Divisional Engineer, Central Railway, Mumbai convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (2012) (bx-r6-cbi-26-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-26-002
**Title:** Mumbai Senior Divisional Engineer, Central Railway, Mumbai convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (2012)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Mumbai Senior Divisional Engineer, Central Railway, Mumbai convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai (2012)
**Conviction:** 31 December 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mumbai, Maharashtra
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 109, Indian Penal Code
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Divisional Engineer, Central Railway, Mumbai
**Sentence:** Three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.75,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI cases, Mumbai convicted a Senior Divisional Engineer, Central Railway, Mumbai on 31 December 2012. The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 109, Indian Penal Code. The sentence recorded is: Three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.75,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180215/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-12-31-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2012-12-31-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-26-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-26-002)

## Hyderabad Garrison Engineer, MES, Secunderabad convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (2017) (bx-r6-cbi-26-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-26-003
**Title:** Hyderabad Garrison Engineer, MES, Secunderabad convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (2017)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Hyderabad Garrison Engineer, MES, Secunderabad convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (2017)
**Conviction:** 27 September 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Hyderabad, Telangana
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (disproportionate assets)
**Official (gated display forms):** Garrison Engineer, MES, Secunderabad, Military Engineer Services (MES), Secunderabad, Hyderabad district
**Sentence:** Seven years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.16,00,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad convicted a Garrison Engineer, MES, Secunderabad, Military Engineer Services (MES), Secunderabad, Hyderabad district, on 27 September 2017. The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (disproportionate assets). The sentence recorded is: Seven years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.16,00,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180307/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2017-09-27-2.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2017-09-27-2.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-26-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-26-003)

## New Delhi Chief Prosecutor, Government of NCT, Delhi convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Delhi (2017) (bx-r6-cbi-26-004)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-26-004
**Title:** New Delhi Chief Prosecutor, Government of NCT, Delhi convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Delhi (2017)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI Cases, Delhi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** New Delhi Chief Prosecutor, Government of NCT, Delhi convicted of disproportionate assets, Special Judge, CBI Cases, Delhi (2017)
**Conviction:** 29 September 2017
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** New Delhi, Delhi
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (disproportionate assets)
**Official (gated display forms):** Chief Prosecutor, Government of NCT, Delhi, Prosecution Department, Government of NCT, Delhi, New Delhi district
**Sentence:** Three years Simple Imprisonment; fine: Rs.10,00,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Delhi convicted a Chief Prosecutor, Government of NCT, Delhi, Prosecution Department, Government of NCT, Delhi, New Delhi district, on 29 September 2017. The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (disproportionate assets). The sentence recorded is: Three years Simple Imprisonment; fine: Rs.10,00,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180307/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2017-09-29-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2017-09-29-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-26-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-26-004)

## Banaskantha Executive Engineer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI cases, Ahmedabad (2018) (bx-r6-cbi-27-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-27-001
**Title:** Banaskantha Executive Engineer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI cases, Ahmedabad (2018)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI cases, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Banaskantha Executive Engineer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI cases, Ahmedabad (2018)
**Conviction:** January 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Banaskantha, Gujarat
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B IPC; 420 IPC; 467 IPC; 468 IPC; 471 IPC; 511 IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Executive Engineer, BFD, CPWD, Tharad, Banaskantha
**Sentence:** three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 6000/-

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI cases, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) convicted an Executive Engineer, BFD, CPWD, Tharad, Banaskantha, in January 2018. The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 120-B IPC; 420 IPC; 467 IPC and other provisions. The sentence recorded is: three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 6000/-. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180313/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-27-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-27-001)

## Banaskantha Junior Engineer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI cases, Ahmedabad (2018) (bx-r6-cbi-27-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-27-002
**Title:** Banaskantha Junior Engineer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI cases, Ahmedabad (2018)
**Court:** Special Judge, CBI cases, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Banaskantha Junior Engineer convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Special Judge, CBI cases, Ahmedabad (2018)
**Conviction:** January 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Banaskantha, Gujarat
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 120-B IPC; 420 IPC; 467 IPC; 468 IPC; 471 IPC; 511 IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Engineer, BFD, CPWD, Tharad, Banaskantha
**Sentence:** three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 6000/-

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, CBI cases, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) convicted a Junior Engineer, BFD, CPWD, Tharad, Banaskantha, in January 2018. The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 120-B IPC; 420 IPC; 467 IPC and other provisions. The sentence recorded is: three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 6000/-. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180313/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-01-04-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-27-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-27-002)

## Case No 16/96 (bx-r6-cbi-28-004)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-28-004
**Title:** Case No 16/96
**Court:** Special Judge, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Case No 16/96
**Conviction:** 24 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dumka, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Veterinary Officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district
**Sentence:** 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Ranchi convicted a Veterinary Officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district, on 24 March 2018 (Case No 16/96). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180326/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-28-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-28-004)

## Case No 16/96 (bx-r6-cbi-28-005)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-28-005
**Title:** Case No 16/96
**Court:** Special Judge, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Case No 16/96
**Conviction:** 24 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dumka, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Veterinary Officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district
**Sentence:** 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Ranchi convicted a Veterinary Officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district, on 24 March 2018 (Case No 16/96). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180326/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-28-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-28-005)

## Case No 16/96 (bx-r6-cbi-28-007)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-28-007
**Title:** Case No 16/96
**Court:** Special Judge, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Case No 16/96
**Conviction:** 24 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dumka, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Veterinary Officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district
**Sentence:** 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Ranchi convicted a Veterinary Officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district, on 24 March 2018 (Case No 16/96). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180326/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-28-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-28-007)

## Case No 16/96 (bx-r6-cbi-28-008)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-28-008
**Title:** Case No 16/96
**Court:** Special Judge, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Case No 16/96
**Conviction:** 24 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dumka, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Veterinary Officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district
**Sentence:** 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Ranchi convicted a Veterinary Officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district, on 24 March 2018 (Case No 16/96). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180326/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-28-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-28-008)

## Case No 16/96 (bx-r6-cbi-28-009)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-28-009
**Title:** Case No 16/96
**Court:** Special Judge, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Case No 16/96
**Conviction:** 24 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dumka, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district
**Sentence:** 7 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 30 lakh under each head; ID 1 year SI (as printed)

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Ranchi convicted a Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district, on 24 March 2018 (Case No 16/96). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 7 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 30 lakh under each head; ID 1 year SI (as printed). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180326/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-28-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-28-009)

## Case No 16/96 (bx-r6-cbi-28-010)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-28-010
**Title:** Case No 16/96
**Court:** Special Judge, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Case No 16/96
**Conviction:** 24 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dumka, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Accountant, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district
**Sentence:** 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Ranchi convicted an Accountant, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district, on 24 March 2018 (Case No 16/96). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180326/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-28-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-28-010)

## Case No 16/96 (bx-r6-cbi-28-011)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-28-011
**Title:** Case No 16/96
**Court:** Special Judge, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Case No 16/96
**Conviction:** 24 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dumka, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Veterinary officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district
**Sentence:** 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Ranchi convicted a Veterinary officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district, on 24 March 2018 (Case No 16/96). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180326/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-28-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-28-011)

## Case No 16/96 (bx-r6-cbi-28-012)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-28-012
**Title:** Case No 16/96
**Court:** Special Judge, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Case No 16/96
**Conviction:** 24 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dumka, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Secretary, Government of Bihar, Dumka district
**Sentence:** 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Ranchi convicted a Secretary, Government of Bihar, Dumka district, on 24 March 2018 (Case No 16/96). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name's initials could not be confirmed in the source entry.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180326/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-28-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-28-012)

## Case No 16/96 (bx-r6-cbi-28-013)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-28-013
**Title:** Case No 16/96
**Court:** Special Judge, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Case No 16/96
**Conviction:** 24 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dumka, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Veterinary Officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district
**Sentence:** 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Ranchi convicted a Veterinary Officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district, on 24 March 2018 (Case No 16/96). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180326/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-28-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-28-013)

## Case No 16/96 (bx-r6-cbi-28-014)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-28-014
**Title:** Case No 16/96
**Court:** Special Judge, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Case No 16/96
**Conviction:** 24 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dumka, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Veterinary Officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district
**Sentence:** 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Ranchi convicted a Veterinary Officer, Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka district, on 24 March 2018 (Case No 16/96). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180326/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-28-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-28-014)

## Case No 16/96 (bx-r6-cbi-28-015)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-28-015
**Title:** Case No 16/96
**Court:** Special Judge, Ranchi (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Case No 16/96
**Conviction:** 24 March 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dumka, Jharkhand
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Treasury Assistant, Treasury (Dumka)
**Sentence:** 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge, Ranchi convicted a Treasury Assistant, Treasury (Dumka), on 24 March 2018 (Case No 16/96). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under Section 120B r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Section 120B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3.5 years RI under each head (sentences to run consecutively); fine: Rs. 15 lakh under each head. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180326/http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2018-03-24-1.php)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-28-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-28-015)

## Dhanbad Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Dhanbad (2016) (bx-r6-cbi-29-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-cbi-29-001
**Title:** Dhanbad Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Dhanbad (2016)
**Court:** Special Judge for CBI Cases, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Dhanbad Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad convicted of bribery, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Dhanbad (2016)
**Conviction:** 1 October 2016
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dhanbad, Jharkhand
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as charged); Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as charged; conviction sections not separately stated)
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, Office of Regional Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad
**Sentence:** Three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 15,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) convicted an Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, Office of Regional Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad, on 1 October 2016. The conviction was for bribery, under Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as charged); Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as charged; conviction sections not separately stated). The sentence recorded is: Three years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 15,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20180330/http://www.cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2016-10-01-1.php); [cbi.nic.in](http://www.cbi.nic.in/pressreleases/pr_2016-10-01-1.php)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-cbi-29-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-cbi-29-001)

## Pathanamthitta Office Attendant convicted of bribery, Thiruvananthapuram Vigilance Court (2024) (bx-r6-kerala-vacb-05-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-kerala-vacb-05-003
**Title:** Pathanamthitta Office Attendant convicted of bribery, Thiruvananthapuram Vigilance Court (2024)
**Court:** Thiruvananthapuram Vigilance Court (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Pathanamthitta Office Attendant convicted of bribery, Thiruvananthapuram Vigilance Court (2024)
**Conviction:** 19 March 2024
**Incident date:** 2014-11-18
**Place:** Pathanamthitta, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Office Attendant, Thiruvalla Taluk Office, Pathanamthitta district
**Sentence:** 7 years rigorous imprisonment in aggregate (4 years plus Rs 25,000 fine and 3 years plus Rs 20,000 fine, to run concurrently) and total fine of Rs 45,000

A Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau press note records that the Thiruvananthapuram Vigilance Court convicted an Office Attendant, Thiruvalla Taluk Office, Pathanamthitta district, on 19 March 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 7 years rigorous imprisonment in aggregate (4 years plus Rs 25,000 fine and 3 years plus Rs 20,000 fine, to run concurrently) and total fine of Rs 45,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240628/https://vigilance.kerala.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/pageFiles/ndp0GAc5lETkrTbC7PL7LjcObKgwZTKSYqewBqi3Jy94vAAezx.pdf); [vigilance.kerala.gov.in](https://vigilance.kerala.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/pageFiles/ndp0GAc5lETkrTbC7PL7LjcObKgwZTKSYqewBqi3Jy94vAAezx.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-kerala-vacb-05-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-kerala-vacb-05-003)

## Kannur Village Assistant convicted of bribery, Thalassery Vigilance Court (2024) (bx-r6-kerala-vacb-05-007)

**Record:** bx-r6-kerala-vacb-05-007
**Title:** Kannur Village Assistant convicted of bribery, Thalassery Vigilance Court (2024)
**Court:** Thalassery Vigilance Court (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Kannur Village Assistant convicted of bribery, Thalassery Vigilance Court (2024)
**Conviction:** 17 February 2024
**Incident date:** 2013-02-02
**Place:** Kannur, Kerala
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Assistant, Chovveri Village Office, Kannur
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 25,000

A Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau press note records that the Thalassery Vigilance Court convicted a Village Assistant, Chovveri Village Office, Kannur, on 17 February 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 25,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilance.kerala.gov.in](https://vigilance.kerala.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/pageFiles/pr4yzFgHZoJaDEV61hxvxEocWbxORkustr9ydv2sYmzPE0OW2K.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240628/https://vigilance.kerala.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/pageFiles/pr4yzFgHZoJaDEV61hxvxEocWbxORkustr9ydv2sYmzPE0OW2K.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-kerala-vacb-05-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-kerala-vacb-05-007)

## Palakkad Junior Health Inspector convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Thrissur Vigilance Court (2025) (bx-r6-kerala-vacb-08-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-kerala-vacb-08-001
**Title:** Palakkad Junior Health Inspector convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Thrissur Vigilance Court (2025)
**Court:** Thrissur Vigilance Court (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Palakkad Junior Health Inspector convicted of fraud or misappropriation, Thrissur Vigilance Court (2025)
**Conviction:** 15 March 2025
**Incident date:** 2006
**Place:** Palakkad, Kerala
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Health Inspector, Ottapalam Municipality (Health), Palakkad district
**Sentence:** 4.5 years rigorous imprisonment across various sections (to run concurrently) and fine of Rs 4,00,000

A Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau press note records that the Thrissur Vigilance Court convicted a Junior Health Inspector, Ottapalam Municipality (Health), Palakkad district, on 15 March 2025. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: 4.5 years rigorous imprisonment across various sections (to run concurrently) and fine of Rs 4,00,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20250603/https://vigilance.kerala.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/pageFiles/9QFWsOUKHUWeYSsnWUa9ZEpP42FqQp53IvzQCHW298hnRxIOXk.pdf); [vigilance.kerala.gov.in](https://vigilance.kerala.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/pageFiles/9QFWsOUKHUWeYSsnWUa9ZEpP42FqQp53IvzQCHW298hnRxIOXk.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-kerala-vacb-08-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-kerala-vacb-08-001)

## Crime No. 46/02 (bx-r6-mp-lokayukta-07-005)

**Record:** bx-r6-mp-lokayukta-07-005
**Title:** Crime No. 46/02
**Court:** Special Court, Bhopal (as printed: माननीय विशेष न्यायालय भोपाल) (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 46/02
**Conviction:** 15 April 2004
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bhopal (court city; posting Jabalpur as printed), Madhya Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Sanchalak (Director), Rozgar evam Prashikshan, Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Employment and Training Department, Madhya Pradesh (as printed: संचालक, रोजगार एवं प्रशिक्षण, म.प्र. जबलपुर), Bhopal district
**Sentence:** two years imprisonment and fine under Section 7; two years imprisonment and fine under Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Madhya Pradesh Lokayukta's list of decisions records that the Special Court, Bhopal (as printed: माननीय विशेष न्यायालय भोपाल) convicted a Sanchalak (Director), Rozgar evam Prashikshan, Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Employment and Training Department, Madhya Pradesh (as printed: संचालक, रोजगार एवं प्रशिक्षण, म.प्र. जबलपुर), Bhopal district, on 15 April 2004 (Crime No. 46/02). The conviction was for bribery, under Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: two years imprisonment and fine under Section 7; two years imprisonment and fine under Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [mplokayukt.nic.in](http://mplokayukt.nic.in/uploads/media/Important_Decisions_of_Lokayukt.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210824/http://mplokayukt.nic.in/uploads/media/Important_Decisions_of_Lokayukt.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-mp-lokayukta-07-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-mp-lokayukta-07-005)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.15 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-002
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhawanipatna (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Conviction:** 24 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kalahandi, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Jr. Clerk, Establishment Section in the office of CDMO, Nuapara, Health (office of CDMO, Nuapada), Kalahandi district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 and 1/2 years (13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)) and RI for 1 year (u/s 7), to run concurrently; fine: Rs.2,500 (in default RI 4 months); Rs.1,500 (in default RI 3 months)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhawanipatna convicted a Jr. Clerk, Establishment Section in the office of CDMO, Nuapara, Health (office of CDMO, Nuapada), Kalahandi district, on 24 January 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.15). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 and 1/2 years (13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)) and RI for 1 year (u/s 7), to run concurrently; fine: Rs.2,500 (in default RI 4 months); Rs.1,500 (in default RI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-002)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.25 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-003
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.25
**Court:** Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.25
**Conviction:** 27 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Khordha, Odisha
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) P.C. Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Dy. Director, Social Forestry, Project Division, Bhubaneswar, Forest (Social Forestry, Project Division, Bhubaneswar), Khordha district
**Sentence:** RI for two and half years; fine: Rs.20,000 (in default RI 2 months more)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar convicted a Dy. Director, Social Forestry, Project Division, Bhubaneswar, Forest (Social Forestry, Project Division, Bhubaneswar), Khordha district, on 27 January 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.25). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) P.C. Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: RI for two and half years; fine: Rs.20,000 (in default RI 2 months more). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-003)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.45 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-004)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-004
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.45
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.45
**Conviction:** 31 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Khordha, Odisha
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** BDO, Kakatpur, Dist. Puri, Panchayati Raj/Rural Development (BDO, Kakatpur), Khordha district
**Sentence:** RI for 2 years; fine: Rs.30,000 (in default RI 3 months more)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted a BDO, Kakatpur, Dist. Puri, Panchayati Raj/Rural Development (BDO, Kakatpur), Khordha district, on 31 January 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.45). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 2 years; fine: Rs.30,000 (in default RI 3 months more). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-004)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.35 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-005)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-005
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.35
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.35
**Conviction:** 2 February 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Forest Range Officer, Athagarh, Forest (Range Office, Athagarh), Cuttack district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year and RI for 6 months on the two counts; fine: Rs.2,000 (in default RI 2 months); Rs.1,000 (in default RI 1 month)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack convicted a Forest Range Officer, Athagarh, Forest (Range Office, Athagarh), Cuttack district, on 2 February 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.35). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year and RI for 6 months on the two counts; fine: Rs.2,000 (in default RI 2 months); Rs.1,000 (in default RI 1 month). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-005)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.19 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-006)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-006
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.19
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Keonjhar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.19
**Conviction:** 8 February 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Keonjhar, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Peskar-cum-Clerk (Retd), Badabil Tahasil, Dist. Keonjhar, Revenue (Badabil Tahasil, Keonjhar)
**Sentence:** SI for 1 year and SI for 6 months, to run concurrently; fine: Rs.10,000 (in default SI 4 months); Rs.5,000 (in default SI 2 months)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Keonjhar convicted a Peskar-cum-Clerk (Retd), Badabil Tahasil, Dist. Keonjhar, Revenue (Badabil Tahasil, Keonjhar), on 8 February 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.19). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: SI for 1 year and SI for 6 months, to run concurrently; fine: Rs.10,000 (in default SI 4 months); Rs.5,000 (in default SI 2 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-006)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.20 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-007)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-007
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.20
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.20
**Conviction:** 10 February 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Koraput, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 477-A/34 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** OAS, ex-BDO, Nandahandi Block, presently working as BDO, Nandapur Block, Panchayati Raj/Rural Development (BDO, Nandahandi/Nandapur), Koraput district
**Sentence:** RI for 3 years on each of the two counts, substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.50,000 on each count (in default RI 6 months more per count)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore convicted an OAS, ex-BDO, Nandahandi Block, presently working as BDO, Nandapur Block, Panchayati Raj/Rural Development (BDO, Nandahandi/Nandapur), Koraput district, on 10 February 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.20). The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 477-A/34 IPC. The sentence recorded is: RI for 3 years on each of the two counts, substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.50,000 on each count (in default RI 6 months more per count). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-007)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.36 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-008)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-008
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.36
**Court:** Addl. Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.36
**Conviction:** 22 February 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Khordha, Odisha
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Asst. Civil Supply Officer, Nayagarh, Food & Civil Supplies (ACSO, Nayagarh), Khordha district
**Sentence:** RI for 2 years; fine: Rs.1,00,000 (in default RI 1 year more)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Addl. Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted an Asst. Civil Supply Officer, Nayagarh, Food & Civil Supplies (ACSO, Nayagarh), Khordha district, on 22 February 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.36). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 2 years; fine: Rs.1,00,000 (in default RI 1 year more). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-008)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.46 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-011)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-011
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.46
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhawanipatna (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.46
**Conviction:** 29 February 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kalahandi, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** R.I., Nuapada Circle, Nuapada, Revenue (RI, Nuapada Circle, Nuapada), Kalahandi district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 1/2 years and RI for 1 year, substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.3,000 (in default RI 6 months); Rs.2,000 (in default RI 4 months)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhawanipatna convicted an R.I., Nuapada Circle, Nuapada, Revenue (RI, Nuapada Circle, Nuapada), Kalahandi district, on 29 February 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.46). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 1/2 years and RI for 1 year, substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.3,000 (in default RI 6 months); Rs.2,000 (in default RI 4 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-011)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.39 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-012)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-012
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.39
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.39
**Conviction:** 29 February 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Khordha, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Steno to Electrical Inspector, Bhubaneswar, Energy (office of Electrical Inspector, Bhubaneswar), Khordha district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year and RI for 6 months; fine: Rs.2,000 (in default RI 2 months); Rs.1,000 (in default RI 1 month)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted a Steno to Electrical Inspector, Bhubaneswar, Energy (office of Electrical Inspector, Bhubaneswar), Khordha district, on 29 February 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.39). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year and RI for 6 months; fine: Rs.2,000 (in default RI 2 months); Rs.1,000 (in default RI 1 month). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-012)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.4 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-013)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-013
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.4
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.4
**Conviction:** 7 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Koraput, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) P.C. Act; 409 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Asst. Teacher, In-Charge Headmaster, Jhariguda Project U.P. School, Dist. Nabarangpur, Education (Jhariguda Project U.P. School, Nabarangpur), Koraput district
**Sentence:** RI for 3 years on each count, to run concurrently; fine: Rs.50,000 per count (in default RI 6 months more per count)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore convicted an Asst. Teacher, In-Charge Headmaster, Jhariguda Project U.P. School, Dist. Nabarangpur, Education (Jhariguda Project U.P. School, Nabarangpur), Koraput district, on 7 March 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.4). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) P.C. Act; 409 IPC. The sentence recorded is: RI for 3 years on each count, to run concurrently; fine: Rs.50,000 per count (in default RI 6 months more per count). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-013)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.25 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-014)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-014
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.25
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.25
**Conviction:** 15 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sambalpur, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Asst. Revenue Inspector of Duduka Revenue Circle under Hemgir Tahasil, Dist. Sundargarh, Revenue (Duduka Revenue Circle, Hemgir Tahasil, Sundargarh), Sambalpur district
**Sentence:** SI for 1 year u/s 7 P.C. Act; fine: Rs.1,500 (in default SI 3 months more)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur convicted an Asst. Revenue Inspector of Duduka Revenue Circle under Hemgir Tahasil, Dist. Sundargarh, Revenue (Duduka Revenue Circle, Hemgir Tahasil, Sundargarh), Sambalpur district, on 15 March 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.25). The conviction was for bribery, under 7 P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: SI for 1 year u/s 7 P.C. Act; fine: Rs.1,500 (in default SI 3 months more). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-014)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.13 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-015)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-015
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.13
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.13
**Conviction:** 22 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Balasore, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** S.I. of Schools, Raruan Block, Dist. Mayurbhanj, Education (S.I. of Schools, Raruan Block, Mayurbhanj), Balasore district
**Sentence:** RI for 3 years and RI for 1 year, substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.10,000 (in default RI 2 months); Rs.8,000 (in default RI 1 month)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore convicted an S.I. of Schools, Raruan Block, Dist. Mayurbhanj, Education (S.I. of Schools, Raruan Block, Mayurbhanj), Balasore district, on 22 March 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.13). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 3 years and RI for 1 year, substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.10,000 (in default RI 2 months); Rs.8,000 (in default RI 1 month). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-015)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.15 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-017)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-017
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Court:** Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Conviction:** 30 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Khordha, Odisha
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** OFS-I, Ex-DFO, Afforestation, Cuttack, Forest (Afforestation, Cuttack), Khordha district
**Sentence:** RI for 2 1/2 years; fine: Rs.20,000 (in default RI 2 months more)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar convicted an OFS-I, Ex-DFO, Afforestation, Cuttack, Forest (Afforestation, Cuttack), Khordha district, on 30 March 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.15). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 2 1/2 years; fine: Rs.20,000 (in default RI 2 months more). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-017)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.25 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-018)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-018
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.25
**Court:** Addl. C.J.M. (Special), Cuttack (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.25
**Conviction:** 30 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 409/34 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Sr. Accountant, Sukarangi Chromite Mines, Jajpur, Mines (Sukarangi Chromite Mines, Jajpur), Cuttack district
**Sentence:** RI for 2 years; fine: Rs.5,000 (in default RI 6 months more)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Addl. C.J.M. (Special), Cuttack convicted a Sr. Accountant, Sukarangi Chromite Mines, Jajpur, Mines (Sukarangi Chromite Mines, Jajpur), Cuttack district, on 30 March 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.25). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 409/34 IPC. The sentence recorded is: RI for 2 years; fine: Rs.5,000 (in default RI 6 months more). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-018)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.64 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-020)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-020
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.64
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.64
**Conviction:** 5 April 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sambalpur, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior clerk, office of the RTO, Jharsuguda, Transport (RTO, Jharsuguda), Sambalpur district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.2,000 (in default RI 3 months more)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur convicted a Junior clerk, office of the RTO, Jharsuguda, Transport (RTO, Jharsuguda), Sambalpur district, on 5 April 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.64). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.2,000 (in default RI 3 months more). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-020)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-021)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-021
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.6
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.6
**Conviction:** 10 April 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Koraput, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 P.C. Act; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** CDPO, Padia Block, Dist. Malkangiri, Women & Child Development (CDPO, Padia Block, Malkangiri), Koraput district
**Sentence:** RI for 6 months (u/s 7) and RI for 1 year (13(2)), substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.5,000 per count (in default RI 15 days / 2 months)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore convicted a CDPO, Padia Block, Dist. Malkangiri, Women & Child Development (CDPO, Padia Block, Malkangiri), Koraput district, on 10 April 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.6). The conviction was for bribery, under 7 P.C. Act; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 6 months (u/s 7) and RI for 1 year (13(2)), substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.5,000 per count (in default RI 15 days / 2 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-021)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.23 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-022)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-022
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.23
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhawanipatna (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.23
**Conviction:** 11 April 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kalahandi, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Jr. Clerk, office of the Tahasildar, Khariar, Dist. Nuapada, Revenue (Tahasildar, Khariar, Nuapada), Kalahandi district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 1/2 years and RI for 1 year, substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.2,500 (in default RI 4 months); Rs.1,500 (in default RI 3 months)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhawanipatna convicted a Jr. Clerk, office of the Tahasildar, Khariar, Dist. Nuapada, Revenue (Tahasildar, Khariar, Nuapada), Kalahandi district, on 11 April 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.23). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 1/2 years and RI for 1 year, substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.2,500 (in default RI 4 months); Rs.1,500 (in default RI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-022)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.32 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-023)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-023
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.32
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.32
**Conviction:** 27 April 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Khordha, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** R.I. of Gangapada Revenue Circle, P.S. Jatni, Dist. Khordha, Revenue (Gangapada Revenue Circle, Jatni, Khordha)
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year and RI for 6 months, substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.2,000 (in default RI 2 months); Rs.1,000 (in default RI 1 month)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted an R.I. of Gangapada Revenue Circle, P.S. Jatni, Dist. Khordha, Revenue (Gangapada Revenue Circle, Jatni, Khordha), on 27 April 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.32). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year and RI for 6 months, substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.2,000 (in default RI 2 months); Rs.1,000 (in default RI 1 month). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-023)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.32 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-024)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-024
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.32
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.32
**Conviction:** 27 April 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Khordha, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Chainman (Retd.) of Gangapada Revenue Circle, P.S. Jatni, Dist. Khordha, Revenue (Gangapada Revenue Circle, Jatni, Khordha)
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year and RI for 6 months, substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.2,000 (in default RI 2 months); Rs.1,000 (in default RI 1 month)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted a Chainman (Retd.) of Gangapada Revenue Circle, P.S. Jatni, Dist. Khordha, Revenue (Gangapada Revenue Circle, Jatni, Khordha), on 27 April 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.32). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act; 7 P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year and RI for 6 months, substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.2,000 (in default RI 2 months); Rs.1,000 (in default RI 1 month). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-024)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-025)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-025
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.6
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.6
**Conviction:** 1 June 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sambalpur, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Birkera Revenue Circle, Dist. Sundargarh, Revenue (RI, Birkera Revenue Circle, Sundargarh), Sambalpur district
**Sentence:** SI for six months u/s 7 P.C. Act; fine: Rs.1,000 (in default SI 1 month more)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur convicted a Revenue Inspector, Birkera Revenue Circle, Dist. Sundargarh, Revenue (RI, Birkera Revenue Circle, Sundargarh), Sambalpur district, on 1 June 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.6). The conviction was for bribery, under 7 P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: SI for six months u/s 7 P.C. Act; fine: Rs.1,000 (in default SI 1 month more). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-025)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.6 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-026)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-026
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.6
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.6
**Conviction:** 5 June 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Balasore, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 P.C. Act; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Head Clerk, O/o the CDMO, Bhadrak, Health (office of CDMO, Bhadrak), Balasore district
**Sentence:** RI for 6 months (u/s 7) and RI for 2 years (13(2)), substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.8,000 (in default RI 1 month); Rs.10,000 (in default RI 2 months)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore convicted a Head Clerk, O/o the CDMO, Bhadrak, Health (office of CDMO, Bhadrak), Balasore district, on 5 June 2012 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.6). The conviction was for bribery, under 7 P.C. Act; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 6 months (u/s 7) and RI for 2 years (13(2)), substantive sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.8,000 (in default RI 1 month); Rs.10,000 (in default RI 2 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in:80](http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20160519/http://odishavigilance.gov.in:80/Pub%20File/Bulletin.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-01-026)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.34 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-001
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.34
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.34
**Conviction:** 6 July 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nabarangpur, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) PC Act, 1988; 409 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Forest Range Officer (Kendu Leaf), Forest Department (Kendu Leaf), Nabarangpur district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year on each count (concurrent); fine: Rs.2,000 on each count

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore convicted a Forest Range Officer (Kendu Leaf), Forest Department (Kendu Leaf), Nabarangpur district, on 6 July 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.34). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) PC Act, 1988; 409 IPC. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year on each count (concurrent); fine: Rs.2,000 on each count. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-001)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.33 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-002
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.33
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.33
**Conviction:** 8 July 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nuapada, Odisha
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) PC Act (disproportionate assets)
**Official (gated display forms):** Inspector of Supplies, Civil Supplies, Nuapada district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.5,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur convicted an Inspector of Supplies, Civil Supplies, Nuapada district, on 8 July 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.33). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) PC Act (disproportionate assets). The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-002)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.29 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-003
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.29
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.29
**Conviction:** 22 July 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Koraput, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 467 IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) PC Act; 409 IPC; 477-A IPC; 471 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Clerk, Education (Schools), Koraput district
**Sentence:** RI 4 years (s.467); RI 3 years on each count (s.13(2)/409/477-A); RI 1 year (s.471), concurrent; fine: Rs.10,000 (s.467); Rs.5,000 on each count; Rs.2,000 (s.471)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore convicted a Junior Clerk, Education (Schools), Koraput district, on 22 July 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.29). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 467 IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) PC Act; 409 IPC and other provisions. The sentence recorded is: RI 4 years (s.467); RI 3 years on each count (s.13(2)/409/477-A); RI 1 year (s.471), concurrent; fine: Rs.10,000 (s.467); Rs.5,000 on each count; Rs.2,000 (s.471). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-003)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.38 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-005)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-005
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.38
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.38
**Conviction:** 27 July 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jagatsinghpur, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** District Coordinator, Education (Schools), Jagatsinghpur district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (s.13(2)) plus RI 6 months (s.7), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 plus Rs.500

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack convicted a District Coordinator, Education (Schools), Jagatsinghpur district, on 27 July 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.38). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (s.13(2)) plus RI 6 months (s.7), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 plus Rs.500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-005)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.15 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-006)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-006
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Conviction:** 31 July 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 468 IPC; 420 IPC; 471 IPC; 120-B IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Executive Engineer, Cuttack Municipal Corporation
**Sentence:** RI 2 years + RI 1 year (s.468) + RI 1 year (s.13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.500 + Rs.500

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack convicted an Executive Engineer, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, on 31 July 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.15). The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 468 IPC; 420 IPC and other provisions. The sentence recorded is: RI 2 years + RI 1 year (s.468) + RI 1 year (s.13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.500 + Rs.500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-006)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.15 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-007)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-007
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Conviction:** 31 July 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 468 IPC; 420 IPC; 471 IPC; 120-B IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Engineer, Cuttack Municipal Corporation
**Sentence:** RI 2 years + RI 1 year (s.468) + RI 1 year (s.13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.500 + Rs.500

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack convicted an Assistant Engineer, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, on 31 July 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.15). The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 468 IPC; 420 IPC and other provisions. The sentence recorded is: RI 2 years + RI 1 year (s.468) + RI 1 year (s.13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.500 + Rs.500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-007)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.15 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-008)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-008
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Conviction:** 31 July 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 468 IPC; 420 IPC; 471 IPC; 120-B IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Engineer, Cuttack Municipal Corporation
**Sentence:** RI 2 years + RI 1 year (s.468) + RI 1 year (s.13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.500 + Rs.500

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack convicted a Junior Engineer, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, on 31 July 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.15). The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 468 IPC; 420 IPC and other provisions. The sentence recorded is: RI 2 years + RI 1 year (s.468) + RI 1 year (s.13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.500 + Rs.500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-008)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.15 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-009)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-009
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Conviction:** 31 July 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 468 IPC; 420 IPC; 471 IPC; 120-B IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Head Clerk, Cuttack Municipal Corporation
**Sentence:** RI 2 years + RI 1 year (s.468) + RI 1 year (s.13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.500 + Rs.500

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack convicted a Head Clerk, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, on 31 July 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.15). The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 468 IPC; 420 IPC and other provisions. The sentence recorded is: RI 2 years + RI 1 year (s.468) + RI 1 year (s.13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.500 + Rs.500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-009)

## P.S. Case No.74 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-013)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-013
**Title:** P.S. Case No.74
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** P.S. Case No.74
**Conviction:** 21 August 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) PC Act; 409 / 34 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Cashier, Government Press, Cuttack district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 3 years (s.409/34), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.2,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack convicted a Cashier, Government Press, Cuttack district, on 21 August 2010 (P.S. Case No.74). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) PC Act; 409 / 34 IPC. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 3 years (s.409/34), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-013)

## P.S. Case No.74 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-014)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-014
**Title:** P.S. Case No.74
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** P.S. Case No.74
**Conviction:** 21 August 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Cuttack, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) PC Act; 409 / 34 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Director-cum-DDO, Forms unit, Government Press, Cuttack district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 3 years (s.409/34), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.2,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack convicted an Assistant Director-cum-DDO, Forms unit, Government Press, Cuttack district, on 21 August 2010 (P.S. Case No.74). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) PC Act; 409 / 34 IPC. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 3 years (s.409/34), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-014)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.14 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-015)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-015
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.14
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bolangir (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.14
**Conviction:** 23 August 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bolangir, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 PC Act; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Draftsman, Special Training Authority, Bolangir district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (s.7) + RI 1 year (s.13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.3,000 (s.13(2) count)

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bolangir convicted a Senior Draftsman, Special Training Authority, Bolangir district, on 23 August 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.14). The conviction was for bribery, under 7 PC Act; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (s.7) + RI 1 year (s.13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.3,000 (s.13(2) count). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-015)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.10 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-016)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-016
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.10
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.10
**Conviction:** 31 August 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Puri, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Puri district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.1,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted a Revenue Inspector, Puri district, on 31 August 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.10). The conviction was for bribery, under 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-016)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.15 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-019)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-019
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bolangir (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Conviction:** 8 September 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Subarnapur, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Welfare Extension Officer, Welfare (Women & Child / Social Welfare), Subarnapur district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.3,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bolangir convicted a Welfare Extension Officer, Welfare (Women & Child / Social Welfare), Subarnapur district, on 8 September 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.15). The conviction was for bribery, under 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-019)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.20 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-021)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-021
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.20
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.20
**Conviction:** 20 September 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Khurda, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Head Clerk, Education (Schools), Khurda district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year under each section; fine: Rs.1,000 under each section

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted a Head Clerk, Education (Schools), Khurda district, on 20 September 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.20). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year under each section; fine: Rs.1,000 under each section. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-021)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.27 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-022)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-022
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.27
**Court:** Additional Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.27
**Conviction:** 21 September 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Clerk, Registration
**Sentence:** SI 1 year (s.13(2)) + SI 6 months (s.7); fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.2,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Additional Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted a Junior Clerk, Registration, on 21 September 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.27). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 1 year (s.13(2)) + SI 6 months (s.7); fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-022)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.60 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-024)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-024
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.60
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.60
**Conviction:** 30 September 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Khurda, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 465 IPC; 468 IPC; 471 IPC; 34 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Headmaster, Education (Kalanga High School), Khurda district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.1,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted a Headmaster, Education (Kalanga High School), Khurda district, on 30 September 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.60). The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 465 IPC; 468 IPC and other provisions. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-024)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.60 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-026)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-026
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.60
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.60
**Conviction:** 30 September 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Khurda, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 471 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Teacher, Education (Kalanga High School), Khurda district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.1,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted an Assistant Teacher, Education (Kalanga High School), Khurda district, on 30 September 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.60). The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 471 IPC. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-026)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.60 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-027)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-027
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.60
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.60
**Conviction:** 30 September 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Khurda, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** cheating forgery
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 471 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Teacher, Education (Kalanga High School), Khurda district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.1,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted an Assistant Teacher, Education (Kalanga High School), Khurda district, on 30 September 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.60). The conviction was for cheating and forgery, under 471 IPC. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-027)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.16 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-029)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-029
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.16
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.16
**Conviction:** 12 October 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Khurda, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Clerk, Education (Schools), Khurda district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.1,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted a Junior Clerk, Education (Schools), Khurda district, on 12 October 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.16). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year; fine: Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-029)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.37 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-030)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-030
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.37
**Court:** Additional Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.37
**Conviction:** 30 October 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Section Officer, Steel & Mines Department (Secretariat)
**Sentence:** SI for 6 months; fine: Rs.500

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Additional Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted a Section Officer, Steel & Mines Department (Secretariat), on 30 October 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.37). The conviction was for bribery, under 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI for 6 months; fine: Rs.500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-030)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.40 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-031)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-031
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.40
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.40
**Conviction:** 30 October 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Assistant, Public Health (PH Rent Sub-Division)
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 6 months (s.7); fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.1,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted a Senior Assistant, Public Health (PH Rent Sub-Division), on 30 October 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.40). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 6 months (s.7); fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-031)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.8 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-032)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-032
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.8
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.8
**Conviction:** 6 November 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Koraput, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Clerk, Treasury (Sub-Treasury), Koraput district
**Sentence:** RI 2 years (s.13(2)) + RI 1 year (s.7); fine: Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore convicted a Senior Clerk, Treasury (Sub-Treasury), Koraput district, on 6 November 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.8). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 2 years (s.13(2)) + RI 1 year (s.7); fine: Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-032)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.43 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-034)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-034
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.43
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.43
**Conviction:** 9 November 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jharsuguda, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Clerk, Education (Schools), Jharsuguda district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 6 months (s.7); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.1,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur convicted a Junior Clerk, Education (Schools), Jharsuguda district, on 9 November 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.43). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 6 months (s.7); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-034)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.47 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-035)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-035
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.47
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.47
**Conviction:** 17 November 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nabarangpur, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) PC Act; 409 IPC; 477-A IPC; 34 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Engineer, Chandahandi Block, Dist. Nabarangpur, Rural Works / Panchayati Raj (Chandahandi Block)
**Sentence:** Fine only; fine: Rs.20,000 each

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore convicted a Junior Engineer, Chandahandi Block, Dist. Nabarangpur, Rural Works / Panchayati Raj (Chandahandi Block), on 17 November 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.47). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) PC Act; 409 IPC; 477-A IPC and other provisions. The sentence recorded is: Fine only; fine: Rs.20,000 each. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-035)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.23 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-037)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-037
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.23
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.23
**Conviction:** 19 November 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Nayagarh, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 468 IPC; 471 IPC; 420 IPC; 120-B IPC; 34 IPC; 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Engineer, Rural Works (Bhapur Block), Nayagarh district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (IPC counts) + RI 1 year (s.13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.1,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted a Junior Engineer, Rural Works (Bhapur Block), Nayagarh district, on 19 November 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.23). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 468 IPC; 471 IPC; 420 IPC and other provisions. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (IPC counts) + RI 1 year (s.13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-037)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.21 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-038)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-038
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.21
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.21
**Conviction:** 19 November 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Balasore, Odisha
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) PC Act; 409 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Engineer, Irrigation, Balasore district
**Sentence:** RI 2 years on each count, concurrent; fine: Rs.5,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore convicted a Junior Engineer, Irrigation, Balasore district, on 19 November 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.21). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) PC Act; 409 IPC. The sentence recorded is: RI 2 years on each count, concurrent; fine: Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-038)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.52 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-042)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-042
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.52
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.52
**Conviction:** 30 November 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act; 177 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Electrical Inspectorate (T&D)
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 6 months (s.7) + SI 1 month (s.177); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.1,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted an Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Electrical Inspectorate (T&D), on 30 November 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.52). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act; 177 IPC. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 6 months (s.7) + SI 1 month (s.177); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-042](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-042)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.52 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-043)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-043
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.52
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.52
**Conviction:** 30 November 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act; 177 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Clerk, Electrical Inspectorate (T&D)
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 6 months (s.7) + SI 1 month (s.177); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.1,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted a Senior Clerk, Electrical Inspectorate (T&D), on 30 November 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.52). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act; 177 IPC. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 6 months (s.7) + SI 1 month (s.177); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-043](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-043)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.15 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-045)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-045
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.15
**Conviction:** 9 December 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Clerk, Electrical Inspectorate
**Sentence:** RI for 6 months; fine: Rs.2,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur convicted a Junior Clerk, Electrical Inspectorate, on 9 December 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.15). The conviction was for bribery, under 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 6 months; fine: Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-045](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-045)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.40 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-046)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-046
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.40
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.40
**Conviction:** 16 December 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sundargarh, Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Excise, Sundargarh district
**Sentence:** RI for 6 months; fine: Rs.2,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur convicted a Sub-Inspector of Excise, Sundargarh district, on 16 December 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.40). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI for 6 months; fine: Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-046](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-046)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.05 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-047)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-047
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.05
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.05
**Conviction:** 21 December 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector
**Sentence:** RI 1 year on each count, concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore convicted a Revenue Inspector on 21 December 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.05). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year on each count, concurrent; fine: Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-047](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-047)

## Vigilance P.S. Case No.44/1997 (bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-048)

**Record:** bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-048
**Title:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.44/1997
**Court:** Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Vigilance P.S. Case No.44/1997
**Conviction:** 28 December 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Odisha
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Assistant, Higher Education Department
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 6 months (s.7); fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.500

An Odisha Vigilance bulletin records that the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar convicted a Senior Assistant, Higher Education Department, on 28 December 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No.44/1997). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act; 7 PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (s.13(2)) + RI 6 months (s.7); fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [odishavigilance.gov.in](https://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220625201655/http://odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/Pub%20File/Bulletin%20(July-Dec-2010).pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-048](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-odisha-vigilance-06-048)

## Barnala Patwari convicted of bribery, Addl. District and Session Judge, Barnala (2022) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-001
**Title:** Barnala Patwari convicted of bribery, Addl. District and Session Judge, Barnala (2022)
**Court:** Addl. District and Session Judge, Barnala (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Barnala Patwari convicted of bribery, Addl. District and Session Judge, Barnala (2022)
**Conviction:** July 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Barnala, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Patwari, Revenue, Barnala district
**Sentence:** four years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 20,000

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Addl. District and Session Judge, Barnala convicted a Patwari, Revenue, Barnala district, in July 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: four years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 20,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/press130822.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220927/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/press130822.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-001)

## Barnala Sewadar convicted of bribery, Addl. District and Session Judge, Barnala (2022) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-002
**Title:** Barnala Sewadar convicted of bribery, Addl. District and Session Judge, Barnala (2022)
**Court:** Addl. District and Session Judge, Barnala (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Barnala Sewadar convicted of bribery, Addl. District and Session Judge, Barnala (2022)
**Conviction:** July 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Barnala, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Sewadar, Revenue, Barnala district
**Sentence:** four years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 10,000

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Addl. District and Session Judge, Barnala convicted a Sewadar, Revenue, Barnala district, in July 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: four years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 10,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/press130822.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220927/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/press130822.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-002)

## Sangrur Patwari convicted of bribery, Addl. District and Session Judge, Sangrur (2022) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-003
**Title:** Sangrur Patwari convicted of bribery, Addl. District and Session Judge, Sangrur (2022)
**Court:** Addl. District and Session Judge, Sangrur (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sangrur Patwari convicted of bribery, Addl. District and Session Judge, Sangrur (2022)
**Conviction:** July 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sangrur, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Patwari, Revenue, Sangrur district
**Sentence:** four years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 20,000

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Addl. District and Session Judge, Sangrur convicted a Patwari, Revenue, Sangrur district, in July 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: four years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 20,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/press130822.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220927/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/press130822.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-003)

## Ferozepur district employee convicted of bribery, Addl. District and Session Judge, Ferozepur (2022) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-004)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-004
**Title:** Ferozepur district employee convicted of bribery, Addl. District and Session Judge, Ferozepur (2022)
**Court:** Addl. District and Session Judge, Ferozepur (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Ferozepur district employee convicted of bribery, Addl. District and Session Judge, Ferozepur (2022)
**Conviction:** July 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ferozepur, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7 Prevention of Corruption Act; 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act
**Official (gated display forms):** district employee, Punjab Khadi Board, Ferozepur district
**Sentence:** three years imprisonment under section 7 PCA and four years imprisonment under section 13(2) PCA; fine: Rs. 10,000 under each section

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Addl. District and Session Judge, Ferozepur convicted a district employee, Punjab Khadi Board, Ferozepur district, in July 2022. The conviction was for bribery, under 7 Prevention of Corruption Act; 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. The sentence recorded is: three years imprisonment under section 7 PCA and four years imprisonment under section 13(2) PCA; fine: Rs. 10,000 under each section. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/press130822.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20220927/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/press130822.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-01-004)

## Rupnagar Forest Officer convicted of bribery, Additional Session Judge, Rupnagar (2019) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-03-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-03-002
**Title:** Rupnagar Forest Officer convicted of bribery, Additional Session Judge, Rupnagar (2019)
**Court:** Additional Session Judge, Rupnagar (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Rupnagar Forest Officer convicted of bribery, Additional Session Judge, Rupnagar (2019)
**Conviction:** June 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Rupnagar, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Forest Officer, Rupnagar district
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 4,000

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional Session Judge, Rupnagar convicted a Forest Officer, Rupnagar district, in June 2019. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 4,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_8-7-2019_total_work.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20190728/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_8-7-2019_total_work.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-03-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-03-002)

## Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar Senior Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Session Judge, SAS Nagar (2019) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-03-003)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-03-003
**Title:** Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar Senior Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Session Judge, SAS Nagar (2019)
**Court:** Additional Session Judge, SAS Nagar (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar Senior Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Session Judge, SAS Nagar (2019)
**Conviction:** June 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Assistant, GAMADA, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar district
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 20,000

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional Session Judge, SAS Nagar convicted a Senior Assistant, GAMADA, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar district, in June 2019. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 20,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_8-7-2019_total_work.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20190728/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_8-7-2019_total_work.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-03-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-03-003)

## Amritsar Personnel Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar (2019) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-001
**Title:** Amritsar Personnel Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar (2019)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Amritsar Personnel Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar (2019)
**Conviction:** January 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Amritsar, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Personnel Assistant, Office of former Punjab Minister \[name withheld\] , Amritsar district
**Sentence:** range across the six accused as printed: 4 to 6 years imprisonment (per-person attribution not stated); fine: range across the six accused as printed: Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 2,30,000 (per-person attribution not stated)

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar convicted a Personnel Assistant, Office of former \[name withheld\], Amritsar district, in January 2019. The conviction was for bribery, under not stated. The sentence recorded is: range across the six accused as printed: 4 to 6 years imprisonment (per-person attribution not stated); fine: range across the six accused as printed: Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 2,30,000 (per-person attribution not stated). The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](http://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_14.02.19.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210301/http://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_14.02.19.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-001)

## Tarn Taran Patwari convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran (2019) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-007)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-007
**Title:** Tarn Taran Patwari convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran (2019)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Tarn Taran Patwari convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran (2019)
**Conviction:** January 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tarn Taran, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Prevention of Corruption Act (section numbers not stated)
**Official (gated display forms):** Patwari, Revenue Department, Tarn Taran district
**Sentence:** 3 years and 4 years imprisonment under two different sections; fine: Rs. 5,000

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran convicted a Patwari, Revenue Department, Tarn Taran district, in January 2019. The conviction was for bribery, under Prevention of Corruption Act (section numbers not stated). The sentence recorded is: 3 years and 4 years imprisonment under two different sections; fine: Rs. 5,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](http://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_14.02.19.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210301/http://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_14.02.19.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-007)

## Roopnagar Store Keeper convicted of bribery, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Roopnagar (2019) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-008)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-008
**Title:** Roopnagar Store Keeper convicted of bribery, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Roopnagar (2019)
**Court:** Additional District and Sessions Judge, Roopnagar (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Roopnagar Store Keeper convicted of bribery, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Roopnagar (2019)
**Conviction:** September 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Roopnagar, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Store Keeper, Civil Surgeon Office, Roopnagar (Health)
**Sentence:** 3 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 10,000

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Roopnagar convicted a Store Keeper, Civil Surgeon Office, Roopnagar (Health), in September 2019. The conviction was for bribery, under not stated. The sentence recorded is: 3 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 10,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](http://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_20.10.19.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210301/http://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_20.10.19.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-008)

## Moga Kanungo convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Moga (2019) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-010)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-010
**Title:** Moga Kanungo convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Moga (2019)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Moga (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Moga Kanungo convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Moga (2019)
**Conviction:** May 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Moga, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Kanungo, Revenue Department, Moga district
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 5,000

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga convicted a Kanungo, Revenue Department, Moga district, in May 2019. The conviction was for bribery, under not stated. The sentence recorded is: 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 5,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](http://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/Vb_10-6-2019.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210301/http://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/Vb_10-6-2019.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-010)

## Moga Patwari convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Moga (2019) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-011)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-011
**Title:** Moga Patwari convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Moga (2019)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Moga (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Moga Patwari convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Moga (2019)
**Conviction:** May 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Moga, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Patwari, Revenue Department, Moga district
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 5,000

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga convicted a Patwari, Revenue Department, Moga district, in May 2019. The conviction was for bribery, under not stated. The sentence recorded is: 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 5,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](http://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/Vb_10-6-2019.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210301/http://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/Vb_10-6-2019.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-011)

## Patiala Lecturer convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (2019) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-012)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-012
**Title:** Patiala Lecturer convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (2019)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Patiala Lecturer convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (2019)
**Conviction:** May 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Patiala, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Lecturer, Punjabi University constituent college Ghanour, Patiala district (Education)
**Sentence:** 5 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 20,000

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala convicted a Lecturer, Punjabi University constituent college Ghanour, Patiala district (Education), in May 2019. The conviction was for bribery, under not stated. The sentence recorded is: 5 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 20,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](http://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/Vb_10-6-2019.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210301/http://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/Vb_10-6-2019.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-04-012)

## SAS Nagar Junior Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Session Judge, SAS Nagar (2019) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-001
**Title:** SAS Nagar Junior Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Session Judge, SAS Nagar (2019)
**Court:** Additional Session Judge, SAS Nagar (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** SAS Nagar Junior Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Session Judge, SAS Nagar (2019)
**Conviction:** April 2019
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** SAS Nagar, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Assistant, Improvement Trust Rupnagar, SAS Nagar district
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 10,000

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional Session Judge, SAS Nagar convicted a Junior Assistant, Improvement Trust Rupnagar, SAS Nagar district, in April 2019. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 10,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_14.5.19_VB_caught.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210303/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/VB_14.5.19_VB_caught.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-001)

## SAS Nagar Senior Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (2018) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-007)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-007
**Title:** SAS Nagar Senior Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (2018)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** SAS Nagar Senior Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (2018)
**Conviction:** February 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** SAS Nagar, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Assistant, Treasury, SAS Nagar district
**Sentence:** 7 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 6.4 lac / Rs. 5.4 lac (per-convict split not stated in note)

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar convicted a Senior Assistant, Treasury, SAS Nagar district, in February 2018. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 7 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 6.4 lac / Rs. 5.4 lac (per-convict split not stated in note). The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/vb_26.3.18.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210306/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/vb_26.3.18.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-007)

## Ludhiana Junior Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (2018) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-008)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-008
**Title:** Ludhiana Junior Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (2018)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Ludhiana Junior Assistant convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (2018)
**Conviction:** February 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ludhiana, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Assistant, Treasury, Ludhiana district
**Sentence:** 2 months imprisonment; fine: Rs. 25,000

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana convicted a Junior Assistant, Treasury, Ludhiana district, in February 2018. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 months imprisonment; fine: Rs. 25,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/vb_26.3.18.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210306/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/vb_26.3.18.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-008)

## Patiala Clerk convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (2018) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-009)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-009
**Title:** Patiala Clerk convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (2018)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Patiala Clerk convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (2018)
**Conviction:** February 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Patiala, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Clerk, Local Bodies (Municipal Corporation Patiala)
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 1.5 lac

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala convicted a Clerk, Local Bodies (Municipal Corporation Patiala), in February 2018. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 1.5 lac. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/vb_26.3.18.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210306/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/vb_26.3.18.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-009)

## SAS Nagar Chairman convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (2018) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-011)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-011
**Title:** SAS Nagar Chairman convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (2018)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** SAS Nagar Chairman convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (2018)
**Conviction:** February 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** SAS Nagar, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission, SAS Nagar district
**Sentence:** 7 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 75 lac

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar convicted a Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission, SAS Nagar district, in February 2018. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 7 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 75 lac. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/vb_26.3.18.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210306/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/vb_26.3.18.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-011)

## Bathinda Clerk convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda (2018) (bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-012)

**Record:** bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-012
**Title:** Bathinda Clerk convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda (2018)
**Court:** Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Bathinda Clerk convicted of bribery, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda (2018)
**Conviction:** February 2018
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bathinda, Punjab
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Clerk, Local Bodies (Municipal Corporation Bathinda)
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 10,000

A Punjab Vigilance Bureau press note records that the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda convicted a Clerk, Local Bodies (Municipal Corporation Bathinda), in February 2018. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 10,000. The date given is the date of the agency's release; the judgment date is not stated separately. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (2):** [vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in](https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/vb_26.3.18.pdf); [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20210306/https://vigilancebureau.punjab.gov.in/uploads/articles/vb_26.3.18.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-punjab-vb-05-012)

## CC.No. 8/12; RC No. 25/11/LB/CC-III) (bx-r6-tn-dvac-01-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-tn-dvac-01-001
**Title:** CC.No. 8/12; RC No. 25/11/LB/CC-III)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** CC.No. 8/12; RC No. 25/11/LB/CC-III)
**Conviction:** 12 August 2021
**Incident date:** 2011-02-01
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act 1988; Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** A.E., Corporation of Chennai
**Sentence:** 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for bribe demand and 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for receiving the bribe, both sentences to run concurrently

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted an A.E., Corporation of Chennai, on 12 August 2021 (CC.No. 8/12; RC No. 25/11/LB/CC-III)). The conviction was for bribery, under Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act 1988; Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for bribe demand and 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for receiving the bribe, both sentences to run concurrently. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-tn-dvac-01-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-tn-dvac-01-001)

## Karur Stamping Inspector convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Karur (2022) (bx-r6-tn-dvac-01-004)

**Record:** bx-r6-tn-dvac-01-004
**Title:** Karur Stamping Inspector convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Karur (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Karur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Karur Stamping Inspector convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Karur (2022)
**Conviction:** 29 July 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Bribe demand and acceptance (PC Act provisions not specified in press note)
**Official (gated display forms):** Stamping Inspector, Karur District (Stamping)
**Sentence:** 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- for bribe demand and 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- for receiving the bribe, both punishments to run concurrently

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Karur convicted a Stamping Inspector, Karur District (Stamping), on 29 July 2022. The conviction was for bribery, under Bribe demand and acceptance (PC Act provisions not specified in press note). The sentence recorded is: 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- for bribe demand and 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- for receiving the bribe, both punishments to run concurrently. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-tn-dvac-01-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-tn-dvac-01-004)

## Chennai Junior Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022) (bx-r6-tn-dvac-03-001)

**Record:** bx-r6-tn-dvac-03-001
**Title:** Chennai Junior Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Chennai Junior Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022)
**Conviction:** 22 September 2022
**Incident date:** 2011-02-25
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Assistant, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai district
**Sentence:** 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.2,000

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted a Junior Assistant, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai district, on 22 September 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-tn-dvac-03-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-tn-dvac-03-001)

## Chennai Superintendent convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022) (bx-r6-tn-dvac-03-002)

**Record:** bx-r6-tn-dvac-03-002
**Title:** Chennai Superintendent convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Chennai Superintendent convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022)
**Conviction:** 22 September 2022
**Incident date:** 2011-02-25
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Superintendent, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai district
**Sentence:** 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1,000

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted a Superintendent, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai district, on 22 September 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-tn-dvac-03-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-tn-dvac-03-002)

## Kanchipuram Village Administrative Officer convicted of bribery, Special Court for PC Act Cases, Chengalpattu (2023) (bx-r6-tn-dvac-03-004)

**Record:** bx-r6-tn-dvac-03-004
**Title:** Kanchipuram Village Administrative Officer convicted of bribery, Special Court for PC Act Cases, Chengalpattu (2023)
**Court:** Special Court for PC Act Cases, Chengalpattu (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Kanchipuram Village Administrative Officer convicted of bribery, Special Court for PC Act Cases, Chengalpattu (2023)
**Conviction:** 31 October 2023
**Incident date:** 2008-07-03
**Place:** Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Section 7 of PC Act, 1988; Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Administrative Officer, Revenue Department — Village Administration (Sathanancheri Village, i/c Pinayur Village, Uthiramerur Taluk), Kanchipuram district
**Sentence:** 3 years simple imprisonment u/s 7 and 3 years simple imprisonment u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) (concurrent); fine: Rs.10,000 u/s 7 and Rs.10,000 u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court for PC Act Cases, Chengalpattu convicted a Village Administrative Officer, Revenue Department — Village Administration (Sathanancheri Village, i/c Pinayur Village, Uthiramerur Taluk), Kanchipuram district, on 31 October 2023. The conviction was for bribery, under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988; Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 3 years simple imprisonment u/s 7 and 3 years simple imprisonment u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) (concurrent); fine: Rs.10,000 u/s 7 and Rs.10,000 u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r6-tn-dvac-03-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r6-tn-dvac-03-004)

## Crime No. 34/2001; S.C. No. 37/2003 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-021)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-021
**Title:** Crime No. 34/2001; S.C. No. 37/2003
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 34/2001; S.C. No. 37/2003
**Conviction:** 19 April 2005
**Incident date:** 2001-10-08
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Excise Inspector, Excise Department, Indira Nagar, BDA Complex, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** RI for 1 year (s7); RI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.10,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.10,000/- (s13, in default SI 6 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted an Excise Inspector, Excise Department, Indira Nagar, BDA Complex, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 19 April 2005 (Crime No. 34/2001; S.C. No. 37/2003). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: RI for 1 year (s7); RI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.10,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.10,000/- (s13, in default SI 6 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-021)

## Crime No. 38/2001; S.C. No. 104/03 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-022)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-022
**Title:** Crime No. 38/2001; S.C. No. 104/03
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 38/2001; S.C. No. 104/03
**Conviction:** 3 June 2005
**Incident date:** 2001-12-04
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Asst. Director, Employment Exchange, K.G. Road, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.3,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.3,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted an Asst. Director, Employment Exchange, K.G. Road, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 3 June 2005 (Crime No. 38/2001; S.C. No. 104/03). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.3,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.3,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also contains acquittal wording near another mention of the name; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-022)

## Crime No. 31/2002; S.C. No. 171/2003 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-023)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-023
**Title:** Crime No. 31/2002; S.C. No. 171/2003
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 31/2002; S.C. No. 171/2003
**Conviction:** 14 June 2005
**Incident date:** 2002-09-05
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Work Inspector, B.M.P., Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.4,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.4,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted a Work Inspector, B.M.P., Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 14 June 2005 (Crime No. 31/2002; S.C. No. 171/2003). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.4,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.4,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-023)

## Crime No. 74/1994; S.C. No. 49/1998 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-024)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-024
**Title:** Crime No. 74/1994; S.C. No. 49/1998
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 74/1994; S.C. No. 49/1998
**Conviction:** 21 July 2005
**Incident date:** 1994-09-21
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s13(1)(e) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Administrative Officer, Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 2 years (s13(1)(e) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.10,50,000/- (in default SI for 1 year)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted an Administrative Officer, Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 21 July 2005 (Crime No. 74/1994; S.C. No. 49/1998). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under PC Act 1988 s13(1)(e) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 2 years (s13(1)(e) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.10,50,000/- (in default SI for 1 year). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-024)

## Crime No. 26/2002; S.C. No. 121/03 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-025)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-025
**Title:** Crime No. 26/2002; S.C. No. 121/03
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 26/2002; S.C. No. 121/03
**Conviction:** 27 July 2005
**Incident date:** 2002-08-12
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Jr. Asst., O/o AEE, BWSSB, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 1 year (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.2,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.2,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted a Jr. Asst., O/o AEE, BWSSB, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 27 July 2005 (Crime No. 26/2002; S.C. No. 121/03). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 1 year (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.2,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.2,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-025)

## Crime No. 4/2002; S.C. No. 131/03 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-026)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-026
**Title:** Crime No. 4/2002; S.C. No. 131/03
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 4/2002; S.C. No. 131/03
**Conviction:** 18 August 2005
**Incident date:** 2002-03-04
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Employment Officer, Professional Study Center, K.G. Road, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.5,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted an Employment Officer, Professional Study Center, K.G. Road, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 18 August 2005 (Crime No. 4/2002; S.C. No. 131/03). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.5,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-026)

## Crime No. 23/2001; S.C. No. 521/02 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-027)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-027
**Title:** Crime No. 23/2001; S.C. No. 521/02
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 23/2001; S.C. No. 521/02
**Conviction:** 23 August 2005
**Incident date:** 2001-07-12
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Sr. Health Inspector, Domlur, BMP, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.3,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.3,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted a Sr. Health Inspector, Domlur, BMP, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 23 August 2005 (Crime No. 23/2001; S.C. No. 521/02). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.3,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.3,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-027)

## Crime No. 19/2000; S.C. No. 194/02 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-028)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-028
**Title:** Crime No. 19/2000; S.C. No. 194/02
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 19/2000; S.C. No. 194/02
**Conviction:** 30 September 2005
**Incident date:** 2000-08-19
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Special Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.10,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted a Special Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 30 September 2005 (Crime No. 19/2000; S.C. No. 194/02). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.10,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-028)

## Crime No. 1/2003; S.C. No. 75/04 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-029)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-029
**Title:** Crime No. 1/2003; S.C. No. 75/04
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 1/2003; S.C. No. 75/04
**Conviction:** 24 October 2005
**Incident date:** 2003-01-08
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Inspector of Legal Metrology, Auto & Taxi Unit, O/o the Controller of Legal Metrology, Jayanagar, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 6 months (s7); SI for 1 year (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.1,000/- (s7, in default SI 1 month); Rs.2,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted an Inspector of Legal Metrology, Auto & Taxi Unit, O/o the Controller of Legal Metrology, Jayanagar, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 24 October 2005 (Crime No. 1/2003; S.C. No. 75/04). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 6 months (s7); SI for 1 year (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.1,000/- (s7, in default SI 1 month); Rs.2,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-029)

## Crime No. 38/2002; S.C. No. 184/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-030)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-030
**Title:** Crime No. 38/2002; S.C. No. 184/2004
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 38/2002; S.C. No. 184/2004
**Conviction:** 15 November 2005
**Incident date:** 2002-10-30
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** S.D.A., O/o the C.T.O., 11th Circle, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 6 months (s7); SI for 1 year (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.1,000/- (s7, in default SI 1 month); Rs.2,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted an S.D.A., O/o the C.T.O., 11th Circle, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 15 November 2005 (Crime No. 38/2002; S.C. No. 184/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 6 months (s7); SI for 1 year (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.1,000/- (s7, in default SI 1 month); Rs.2,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name's initials could not be confirmed in the source entry.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-030)

## Crime No. 16/2002; S.C. No. 83/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-031)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-031
**Title:** Crime No. 16/2002; S.C. No. 83/2004
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 16/2002; S.C. No. 83/2004
**Conviction:** 22 November 2005
**Incident date:** 2002-05-20
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Tax Inspector, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Ward No. 28, Chickpet, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 2 years (s7); SI for 3 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.20,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.30,000/- (s13, in default SI 6 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted a Tax Inspector, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Ward No. 28, Chickpet, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 22 November 2005 (Crime No. 16/2002; S.C. No. 83/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 2 years (s7); SI for 3 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.20,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.30,000/- (s13, in default SI 6 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-031)

## Crime No. 32/1998; S.C. No. 161/2003 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-032)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-032
**Title:** Crime No. 32/1998; S.C. No. 161/2003
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 32/1998; S.C. No. 161/2003
**Conviction:** 21 December 2005
**Incident date:** 1998-06-16
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Section Superintendent, Karnataka Khadi and Gramodyoga Board, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 6 months (s7); SI for 1 year (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.500/- (s7, in default SI 10 days); Rs.500/- (s13, in default SI 10 days)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted a Section Superintendent, Karnataka Khadi and Gramodyoga Board, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 21 December 2005 (Crime No. 32/1998; S.C. No. 161/2003). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 6 months (s7); SI for 1 year (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.500/- (s7, in default SI 10 days); Rs.500/- (s13, in default SI 10 days). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-032)

## Crime No. 10/2002; S.C. No. 62/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-033)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-033
**Title:** Crime No. 10/2002; S.C. No. 62/2004
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 10/2002; S.C. No. 62/2004
**Conviction:** 17 January 2006
**Incident date:** 2002-03-30
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Superintendent, O/o the B.E.O., North Range, Malleshwaram, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.10,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.30,000/- (s13, in default SI 6 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted a Superintendent, O/o the B.E.O., North Range, Malleshwaram, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 17 January 2006 (Crime No. 10/2002; S.C. No. 62/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.10,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.30,000/- (s13, in default SI 6 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also contains acquittal wording near another mention of the name; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-033)

## Crime No. 15/2002; S.C. No. 32/2003 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-034)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-034
**Title:** Crime No. 15/2002; S.C. No. 32/2003
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 15/2002; S.C. No. 32/2003
**Conviction:** 31 January 2006
**Incident date:** 2002-05-10
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Town Planner, C.M.C. Bytarayanapura, Bangalore (formerly Junior Town Planner), Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.10,000/- (s13, in default SI 6 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted a Junior Town Planner, C.M.C. Bytarayanapura, Bangalore (formerly Junior Town Planner), Bangalore City district, on 31 January 2006 (Crime No. 15/2002; S.C. No. 32/2003). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.10,000/- (s13, in default SI 6 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also contains acquittal wording near another mention of the name; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-034)

## Crime No. 15/2002; S.C. No. 32/2003 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-035)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-035
**Title:** Crime No. 15/2002; S.C. No. 32/2003
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 15/2002; S.C. No. 32/2003
**Conviction:** 31 January 2006
**Incident date:** 2002-05-10
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** S.D.A., Engineering Division, C.M.C. Bytarayanapura, Bangalore (formerly S.D.A.), Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.10,000/- (s13, in default SI 6 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted an S.D.A., Engineering Division, C.M.C. Bytarayanapura, Bangalore (formerly S.D.A.), Bangalore City district, on 31 January 2006 (Crime No. 15/2002; S.C. No. 32/2003). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.10,000/- (s13, in default SI 6 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-035)

## Crime No. 33/2002; S.C. No. 102/2003 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-036)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-036
**Title:** Crime No. 33/2002; S.C. No. 102/2003
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 33/2002; S.C. No. 102/2003
**Conviction:** 28 February 2006
**Incident date:** 2002-09-30
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Madivala, BMP, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.10,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted a Revenue Inspector, Madivala, BMP, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 28 February 2006 (Crime No. 33/2002; S.C. No. 102/2003). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 1 year (s7); SI for 2 years (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000/- (s7, in default SI 3 months); Rs.10,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-036)

## Crime No. 12/2003; S.C. No. 211/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-037)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-037
**Title:** Crime No. 12/2003; S.C. No. 211/2004
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 12/2003; S.C. No. 211/2004
**Conviction:** 14 March 2006
**Incident date:** 2003-10-21
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** S.D.A., O/o the A.R.O., B.M.P., Jeevanbhimanagar Range, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 6 months (s7); SI for 1 year (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.2,000/- (s7, in default SI 1 month); Rs.3,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted an S.D.A., O/o the A.R.O., B.M.P., Jeevanbhimanagar Range, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 14 March 2006 (Crime No. 12/2003; S.C. No. 211/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 6 months (s7); SI for 1 year (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.2,000/- (s7, in default SI 1 month); Rs.3,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-037)

## Crime No. 30/2002; S.C. No. 124/2002 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-038)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-038
**Title:** Crime No. 30/2002; S.C. No. 124/2002
**Court:** Spl. Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No. 30/2002; S.C. No. 124/2002
**Conviction:** 23 March 2006
**Incident date:** 2002-09-05
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Surveyor, O/o the Asst. Director of Land Records, K.R. Circle, Bangalore, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** SI for 6 months (s7); SI for 1 year (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000/- (s7, in default SI 1 month); Rs.10,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2005-06 records that the Spl. Judge, Bangalore City convicted a Surveyor, O/o the Asst. Director of Land Records, K.R. Circle, Bangalore, Bangalore City district, on 23 March 2006 (Crime No. 30/2002; S.C. No. 124/2002). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s7; PC Act 1988 s13(1)(d) r/w s13(2). The sentence recorded is: SI for 6 months (s7); SI for 1 year (s13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000/- (s7, in default SI 1 month); Rs.10,000/- (s13, in default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2005-06.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-01-038)

## S.C. No.54/2007; Cr. No.3/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-001)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-001
**Title:** S.C. No.54/2007; Cr. No.3/2006
**Court:** Special Judge's Court, Bagalkot (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** S.C. No.54/2007; Cr. No.3/2006
**Conviction:** 29 August 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bagalkot, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Extension Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot district
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment for one year; fine: Rs.1,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2008-09 records that the Special Judge's Court, Bagalkot convicted an Extension Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot district, on 29 August 2008 (S.C. No.54/2007; Cr. No.3/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Rigorous imprisonment for one year; fine: Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2008-09.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-001)

## S.C. No.34/2002; Cr. No.5/2000 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-003)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-003
**Title:** S.C. No.34/2002; Cr. No.5/2000
**Court:** Special Judge's Court, Bellary (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** S.C. No.34/2002; Cr. No.5/2000
**Conviction:** 26 March 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bellary, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Range Forest Officer, Forest Department (Forest Mobile Squad, Bellary)
**Sentence:** Simple imprisonment one year (s.7); simple imprisonment two years (s.13(1)(d)); sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2008-09 records that the Special Judge's Court, Bellary convicted a Range Forest Officer, Forest Department (Forest Mobile Squad, Bellary), on 26 March 2009 (S.C. No.34/2002; Cr. No.5/2000). The conviction was for bribery, under 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Simple imprisonment one year (s.7); simple imprisonment two years (s.13(1)(d)); sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2008-09.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-003)

## S.C. No.2/2004; Cr. No.8/2001 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-004)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-004
**Title:** S.C. No.2/2004; Cr. No.8/2001
**Court:** Special Judge's Court, Gadag (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** S.C. No.2/2004; Cr. No.8/2001
**Conviction:** 20 November 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chitradurga, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Progress Assistant, Taluk Panchayat Office, Hosadurga, Chitradurga district
**Sentence:** Simple imprisonment for two years; fine: Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2008-09 records that the Special Judge's Court, Gadag convicted a Progress Assistant, Taluk Panchayat Office, Hosadurga, Chitradurga district, on 20 November 2008 (S.C. No.2/2004; Cr. No.8/2001). The conviction was for bribery, under 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Simple imprisonment for two years; fine: Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2008-09.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-004)

## S.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.2/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-005)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-005
**Title:** S.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.2/2005
**Court:** Special Judge's Court, Gadag (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** S.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.2/2005
**Conviction:** 30 April 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Gadag, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Medical Superintendent, MGM T.B & Chest Pain Hospital, Gadag (Health)
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment six months (s.7); rigorous imprisonment one year (s.13(1)(d)); sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2008-09 records that the Special Judge's Court, Gadag convicted a Medical Superintendent, MGM T.B & Chest Pain Hospital, Gadag (Health), on 30 April 2008 (S.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.2/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Rigorous imprisonment six months (s.7); rigorous imprisonment one year (s.13(1)(d)); sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2008-09.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-005)

## S.C. No.180/2006; Cr. No.4/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-007)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-007
**Title:** S.C. No.180/2006; Cr. No.4/2006
**Court:** Special Judge's Court, Gulbarga (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** S.C. No.180/2006; Cr. No.4/2006
**Conviction:** 17 January 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Gulbarga, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** District Officer, SC/ST Development Office, Gulbarga
**Sentence:** Simple imprisonment for two years; fine: Rs.20,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2008-09 records that the Special Judge's Court, Gulbarga convicted a District Officer, SC/ST Development Office, Gulbarga, on 17 January 2009 (S.C. No.180/2006; Cr. No.4/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Simple imprisonment for two years; fine: Rs.20,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2008-09.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-007)

## S.C. No.2/1999; Cr. No.3/1998 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-008)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-008
**Title:** S.C. No.2/1999; Cr. No.3/1998
**Court:** Special Judge's Court, Karwar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** S.C. No.2/1999; Cr. No.3/1998
**Conviction:** 20 June 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karwar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Revenue Department, Karwar district
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment for one year six months; fine: Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2008-09 records that the Special Judge's Court, Karwar convicted a Revenue Inspector, Revenue Department, Karwar district, on 20 June 2008 (S.C. No.2/1999; Cr. No.3/1998). The conviction was for bribery, under 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Rigorous imprisonment for one year six months; fine: Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2008-09.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-008)

## S.C. No.9/2006; Cr. No.2/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-009)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-009
**Title:** S.C. No.9/2006; Cr. No.2/2006
**Court:** Special Judge's Court, Kolar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** S.C. No.9/2006; Cr. No.2/2006
**Conviction:** 15 September 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kolar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue Department, Kolar district
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment for two years; fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2008-09 records that the Special Judge's Court, Kolar convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue Department, Kolar district, on 15 September 2008 (S.C. No.9/2006; Cr. No.2/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Rigorous imprisonment for two years; fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2008-09.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-009)

## S.C. No.1/2000; Cr. No.1/1987 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-010)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-010
**Title:** S.C. No.1/2000; Cr. No.1/1987
**Court:** Special Judge's Court, Koppal (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** S.C. No.1/2000; Cr. No.1/1987
**Conviction:** 10 July 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Koppal, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Engineer, Canal Division, Oddarahalli (Irrigation), Koppal district
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment for three months (further rigorous imprisonment of one year in default of fine); fine: Rs.15,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2008-09 records that the Special Judge's Court, Koppal convicted a Junior Engineer, Canal Division, Oddarahalli (Irrigation), Koppal district, on 10 July 2008 (S.C. No.1/2000; Cr. No.1/1987). The conviction was for bribery, under 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Rigorous imprisonment for three months (further rigorous imprisonment of one year in default of fine); fine: Rs.15,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2008-09.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-010)

## S.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.6/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-014)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-014
**Title:** S.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.6/2005
**Court:** Special Judge's Court, Raichur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** S.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.6/2005
**Conviction:** 30 August 2008
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Raichur, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Secretary, Mittima Lakapura Village Panchayath, Raichur
**Sentence:** Rigorous imprisonment six months (s.7); rigorous imprisonment one year (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 (s.7); Rs.3,000 (s.13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2008-09 records that the Special Judge's Court, Raichur convicted a Secretary, Mittima Lakapura Village Panchayath, Raichur, on 30 August 2008 (S.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.6/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Rigorous imprisonment six months (s.7); rigorous imprisonment one year (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 (s.7); Rs.3,000 (s.13(1)(d)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2008-09.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-014)

## S.C. No.1/2005; Cr. No.1/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-015)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-015
**Title:** S.C. No.1/2005; Cr. No.1/2004
**Court:** Special Judge's Court, Raichur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** S.C. No.1/2005; Cr. No.1/2004
**Conviction:** 31 January 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Raichur, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Division Assistant, Primary Health Centre, Sirwar, Raichur District (Health)
**Sentence:** Simple imprisonment for 18 months; fine: Rs.6,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2008-09 records that the Special Judge's Court, Raichur convicted a Second Division Assistant, Primary Health Centre, Sirwar, Raichur District (Health), on 31 January 2009 (S.C. No.1/2005; Cr. No.1/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under 7; 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: Simple imprisonment for 18 months; fine: Rs.6,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also contains acquittal wording near another mention of the name; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2008-09.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-04-015)

## Spl. C.C. No.77/2002; Cr. No.7/2000 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-001)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-001
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.77/2002; Cr. No.7/2000
**Court:** Special Court, Bellary (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.77/2002; Cr. No.7/2000
**Conviction:** 9 April 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bellary, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Department (Tahsildar office, Kottur), Bellary district
**Sentence:** As per the list, Accused No.1 was sentenced to 1 year simple imprisonment + fine, and Accused No.2 to 2 years simple imprisonment + Rs.10,000 fine (the list does not map accused numbers to names); fine: Rs.5,000 (Accused No.1); Rs.10,000 (Accused No.2)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bellary convicted a Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Department (Tahsildar office, Kottur), Bellary district, on 9 April 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.77/2002; Cr. No.7/2000). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: As per the list, Accused No.1 was sentenced to 1 year simple imprisonment + fine, and Accused No.2 to 2 years simple imprisonment + Rs.10,000 fine (the list does not map accused numbers to names); fine: Rs.5,000 (Accused No.1); Rs.10,000 (Accused No.2). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-001)

## Spl. C.C. No.49/1999; Cr. No.7/1998 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-003)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-003
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.49/1999; Cr. No.7/1998
**Court:** Special Court, Bellary (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.49/1999; Cr. No.7/1998
**Conviction:** 24 April 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bellary, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, City Municipal Council, Bellary
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 3 years rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further rigorous imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bellary convicted a Revenue Inspector, City Municipal Council, Bellary, on 24 April 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.49/1999; Cr. No.7/1998). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 3 years rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further rigorous imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-003)

## Spl. C.C. No.39/2006; Cr. No.3/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-005)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-005
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.39/2006; Cr. No.3/2005
**Court:** Special Court, Bellary (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.39/2006; Cr. No.3/2005
**Conviction:** 30 May 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bellary, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** District Health & Family Welfare Officer, District Health and Family Welfare Office, Bellary
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bellary convicted a District Health & Family Welfare Officer, District Health and Family Welfare Office, Bellary, on 30 May 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.39/2006; Cr. No.3/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-005)

## Spl. C.C. No.2/2003; Cr. No.2/2002 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-006)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-006
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.2/2003; Cr. No.2/2002
**Court:** Special Court, Bidar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.2/2003; Cr. No.2/2002
**Conviction:** 24 June 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bidar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Kanaji Village), Bidar district
**Sentence:** 1 year imprisonment + fine; fine: Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bidar convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Kanaji Village), Bidar district, on 24 June 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.2/2003; Cr. No.2/2002). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year imprisonment + fine; fine: Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-006)

## Spl. C.C. No.19/2008; Cr. No.11/2002 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-007)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-007
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.19/2008; Cr. No.11/2002
**Court:** Special Court, Ramanagar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.19/2008; Cr. No.11/2002
**Conviction:** 28 July 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore Rural, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Treasury Officer, Treasury, Magadi, Bangalore Rural district
**Sentence:** 6 months simple imprisonment + fine, with 4 months further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.20,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Ramanagar convicted a Treasury Officer, Treasury, Magadi, Bangalore Rural district, on 28 July 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.19/2008; Cr. No.11/2002). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 6 months simple imprisonment + fine, with 4 months further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.20,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-007)

## Spl. C.C. No.16/2007; Cr. No.7/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-008)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-008
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.16/2007; Cr. No.7/2006
**Court:** Special Court, Chickmagalur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.16/2007; Cr. No.7/2006
**Conviction:** 4 August 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chickmagalur, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** First Dn. Assistant, Tahsildar Office, Narasimharajapura, Chickmagalur district
**Sentence:** 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.10,000 + Rs.1,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Chickmagalur convicted a First Dn. Assistant, Tahsildar Office, Narasimharajapura, Chickmagalur district, on 4 August 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.16/2007; Cr. No.7/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.10,000 + Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-008)

## Spl. C.C. No.1/2003; Cr. No.3/2001 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-009)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-009
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.1/2003; Cr. No.3/2001
**Court:** Special Court, Bellary (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.1/2003; Cr. No.3/2001
**Conviction:** 12 August 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bellary, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Gazetted Assistant, District Health and Family Welfare Office, Bellary
**Sentence:** 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bellary convicted a Gazetted Assistant, District Health and Family Welfare Office, Bellary, on 12 August 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.1/2003; Cr. No.3/2001). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-009)

## Spl. C.C. No.126/2006; Cr. No.3/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-010)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-010
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.126/2006; Cr. No.3/2006
**Court:** Special Court, Bangalore Rural District (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.126/2006; Cr. No.3/2006
**Conviction:** 27 August 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore Rural, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Shirastedar, Taluk Office, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural district
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment + fine, with 6 months further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bangalore Rural District convicted a Shirastedar, Taluk Office, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural district, on 27 August 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.126/2006; Cr. No.3/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year simple imprisonment + fine, with 6 months further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-010)

## Spl. C.C. No.63/2004; Cr. No.8/2002 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-011)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-011
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.63/2004; Cr. No.8/2002
**Court:** Special Court, Bangalore Rural District (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.63/2004; Cr. No.8/2002
**Conviction:** 27 August 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore Rural, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, City Municipal Council, Hosakote, Bangalore Rural district
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment + fine, with 1 year further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bangalore Rural District convicted a Revenue Inspector, City Municipal Council, Hosakote, Bangalore Rural district, on 27 August 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.63/2004; Cr. No.8/2002). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year simple imprisonment + fine, with 1 year further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-011)

## Spl. C.C. No.6/2007; Cr. No.15/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-013)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-013
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.6/2007; Cr. No.15/2006
**Court:** Special Court, Kolar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.6/2007; Cr. No.15/2006
**Conviction:** 3 September 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kolar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Revenue Department (Holur Hobli), Kolar district
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment + fine on each count, with further imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Kolar convicted a Revenue Inspector, Revenue Department (Holur Hobli), Kolar district, on 3 September 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.6/2007; Cr. No.15/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment + fine on each count, with further imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-013)

## Spl. C.C. No.2/2006; Cr. No.4/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-014)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-014
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.2/2006; Cr. No.4/2005
**Court:** Special Court, Bellary (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.2/2006; Cr. No.4/2005
**Conviction:** 19 September 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bellary, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Kudathini Village), Bellary district
**Sentence:** 1 year 6 months simple imprisonment + fine; fine: Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bellary convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Kudathini Village), Bellary district, on 19 September 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.2/2006; Cr. No.4/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year 6 months simple imprisonment + fine; fine: Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-014)

## Spl. C.C. No.119/2001; Cr. No.17/2000 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-015)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-015
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.119/2001; Cr. No.17/2000
**Court:** Special Court, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.119/2001; Cr. No.17/2000
**Conviction:** 29 September 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Ankolla Village), Belgaum district
**Sentence:** 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Belgaum convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Ankolla Village), Belgaum district, on 29 September 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.119/2001; Cr. No.17/2000). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-015)

## Spl. C.C. No.44/2000; Cr. No.6/1999 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-016)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-016
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.44/2000; Cr. No.6/1999
**Court:** Special Court, Tumkur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.44/2000; Cr. No.6/1999
**Conviction:** 8 October 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tumkur, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Bukkapatna), Tumkur district
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.4,000 + Rs.4,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Tumkur convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Bukkapatna), Tumkur district, on 8 October 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.44/2000; Cr. No.6/1999). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.4,000 + Rs.4,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-016)

## Spl. C.C. No.23/1999; Cr. No.4/1994 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-017)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-017
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.23/1999; Cr. No.4/1994
**Court:** Special Court, Tumkur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.23/1999; Cr. No.4/1994
**Conviction:** 16 October 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tumkur, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Asst. Agricultural Officer, Dry Land Development Board, Tumkur
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment + fine, with 3 months simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Tumkur convicted an Asst. Agricultural Officer, Dry Land Development Board, Tumkur, on 16 October 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.23/1999; Cr. No.4/1994). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment + fine, with 3 months simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-017)

## Spl. C.C. No.25/2003; Cr. No.5/1994 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-020)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-020
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.25/2003; Cr. No.5/1994
**Court:** Special Court, Bellary (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.25/2003; Cr. No.5/1994
**Conviction:** 21 November 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bellary, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Block Development Officer, Rural Development (Block Development Office, Bellary)
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment + fine, with 6 months simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bellary convicted a Block Development Officer, Rural Development (Block Development Office, Bellary), on 21 November 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.25/2003; Cr. No.5/1994). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment + fine, with 6 months simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-020)

## Spl. C.C. No.77/2006; Cr. No.4/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-021)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-021
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.77/2006; Cr. No.4/2005
**Court:** Special Court, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.77/2006; Cr. No.4/2005
**Conviction:** 21 November 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 120-B IPC; Sec. 465 IPC; Sec. 471 IPC; Sec. 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Kangrali B.K., Belgaum district
**Sentence:** 6 months simple imprisonment (120-B) + 1 year (465) + 1 year (471) + 1 year 6 months (13(1)(c)) + fine; fine: Rs.75,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Belgaum convicted a Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Kangrali B.K., Belgaum district, on 21 November 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.77/2006; Cr. No.4/2005). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under Sec. 120-B IPC; Sec. 465 IPC; Sec. 471 IPC; Sec. 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 6 months simple imprisonment (120-B) + 1 year (465) + 1 year (471) + 1 year 6 months (13(1)(c)) + fine; fine: Rs.75,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-021)

## Spl. C.C. No.9/2005; Cr. No.5/2003 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-023)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-023
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.9/2005; Cr. No.5/2003
**Court:** Special Court, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.9/2005; Cr. No.5/2003
**Conviction:** 11 December 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Dn. Assistant, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment + fine, with 2 months further simple imprisonment in default (accused No.2; co-accused Deputy Tahsildar acquitted); fine: Rs.15,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Belgaum convicted a Second Dn. Assistant, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, on 11 December 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.9/2005; Cr. No.5/2003). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year simple imprisonment + fine, with 2 months further simple imprisonment in default (accused No.2; co-accused Deputy Tahsildar acquitted); fine: Rs.15,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also records an acquittal; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-023)

## Spl. C.C. No.03/2004; Cr. No.17/2002 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-024)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-024
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.03/2004; Cr. No.17/2002
**Court:** Special Court, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.03/2004; Cr. No.17/2002
**Conviction:** 30 December 2009
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Shirgaon), Belgaum district
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment + fine, with 6 months further simple imprisonment in default (accused No.1; a private agent co-accused was separately sentenced and is not recorded as an official row); fine: Rs.25,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Belgaum convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Shirgaon), Belgaum district, on 30 December 2009 (Spl. C.C. No.03/2004; Cr. No.17/2002). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year simple imprisonment + fine, with 6 months further simple imprisonment in default (accused No.1; a private agent co-accused was separately sentenced and is not recorded as an official row); fine: Rs.25,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-024)

## Spl. C.C. No.53/2002; Cr. No.3/1999 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-026)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-026
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.53/2002; Cr. No.3/1999
**Court:** Special Court, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.53/2002; Cr. No.3/1999
**Conviction:** 11 January 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Medical Officer, Government Hospital, K.R. Nagar, Mysore (Health Department)
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Mysore convicted a Medical Officer, Government Hospital, K.R. Nagar, Mysore (Health Department), on 11 January 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.53/2002; Cr. No.3/1999). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-026)

## Spl. C.C. No.101/2002; Cr. No.8/2000 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-027)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-027
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.101/2002; Cr. No.8/2000
**Court:** Special Court, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.101/2002; Cr. No.8/2000
**Conviction:** 13 January 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Kadakol, Mysore district
**Sentence:** 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); fine for Sec. 13(1)(d), with simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Mysore convicted a Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Kadakol, Mysore district, on 13 January 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.101/2002; Cr. No.8/2000). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); fine for Sec. 13(1)(d), with simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-027)

## Spl. C.C. No.18/2002; Cr. No.1/2001 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-028)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-028
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.18/2002; Cr. No.1/2001
**Court:** Special Court, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.18/2002; Cr. No.1/2001
**Conviction:** 16 January 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Health Inspector, Mysore City Corporation, Mysore
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Mysore convicted a Junior Health Inspector, Mysore City Corporation, Mysore, on 16 January 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.18/2002; Cr. No.1/2001). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-028)

## Spl. C.C. No.152/2001; Cr. No.3/2000 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-030)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-030
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.152/2001; Cr. No.3/2000
**Court:** Special Court, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.152/2001; Cr. No.3/2000
**Conviction:** 28 January 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Sub-Registrar, Registration Department (T. Narasipura), Mysore district
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default (accused No.1; stamp-vendor co-accused separately sentenced u/s 8 and not recorded as an official row); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Mysore convicted a Senior Sub-Registrar, Registration Department (T. Narasipura), Mysore district, on 28 January 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.152/2001; Cr. No.3/2000). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default (accused No.1; stamp-vendor co-accused separately sentenced u/s 8 and not recorded as an official row); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-030)

## Spl. C.C. No.92/2005; Cr. No.1/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-032)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-032
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.92/2005; Cr. No.1/2005
**Court:** Special Court, Bellary (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.92/2005; Cr. No.1/2005
**Conviction:** 2 February 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bellary, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Kumathi Village), Bellary district
**Sentence:** 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bellary convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Kumathi Village), Bellary district, on 2 February 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.92/2005; Cr. No.1/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), sentences to run concurrently; fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-032)

## Spl. C.C. No.125/2003; Cr. No.1/2002 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-033)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-033
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.125/2003; Cr. No.1/2002
**Court:** Special Court, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.125/2003; Cr. No.1/2002
**Conviction:** 3 February 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** First Dn. Assistant, Revenue Department (Taluk Office, H.D. Kote), Mysore district
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Mysore convicted a First Dn. Assistant, Revenue Department (Taluk Office, H.D. Kote), Mysore district, on 3 February 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.125/2003; Cr. No.1/2002). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-033)

## Spl. C.C. No.11/2004; Cr. No.2/2003 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-034)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-034
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.11/2004; Cr. No.2/2003
**Court:** Special Court, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.11/2004; Cr. No.2/2003
**Conviction:** 8 February 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Surveyor, Revenue Department (Piriyapatna Taluk Office), Mysore district
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Mysore convicted a Surveyor, Revenue Department (Piriyapatna Taluk Office), Mysore district, on 8 February 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.11/2004; Cr. No.2/2003). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-034)

## Spl. C.C. No.97/2008; Cr. No.6/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-035)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-035
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.97/2008; Cr. No.6/2007
**Court:** Special Court, Bagalkot (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.97/2008; Cr. No.6/2007
**Conviction:** 10 February 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bagalkot, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Bill Collector / Clerk, Gram Panchayath, Sasalahatti, Bagalkot district
**Sentence:** 4 years simple imprisonment + fine, with 12 months further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bagalkot convicted a Bill Collector / Clerk, Gram Panchayath, Sasalahatti, Bagalkot district, on 10 February 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.97/2008; Cr. No.6/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 4 years simple imprisonment + fine, with 12 months further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-035)

## Spl. C.C. No.2/2008; Cr. No.4/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-036)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-036
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.2/2008; Cr. No.4/2007
**Court:** Special Court, Bijapur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.2/2008; Cr. No.4/2007
**Conviction:** 25 February 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bijapur, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Office Superintendent, Education Department (Block Education Officer, Sindagi), Bijapur district
**Sentence:** 2 years simple imprisonment + fine, with 2 months further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bijapur convicted an Office Superintendent, Education Department (Block Education Officer, Sindagi), Bijapur district, on 25 February 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.2/2008; Cr. No.4/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 2 years simple imprisonment + fine, with 2 months further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-036)

## Spl. C.C. No.2/2006; Cr. No.1/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-037)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-037
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.2/2006; Cr. No.1/2005
**Court:** Special Court, Gadag (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.2/2006; Cr. No.1/2005
**Conviction:** 26 February 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Gadag, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 IPC; Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** Dy. Tahasildar, Revenue Department (Village Panchayath, Rajoor), Gadag district
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment + fine on each count (concurrent), with simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Gadag convicted a Dy. Tahasildar, Revenue Department (Village Panchayath, Rajoor), Gadag district, on 26 February 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.2/2006; Cr. No.1/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 IPC; Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 IPC. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment + fine on each count (concurrent), with simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.10,000 + Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-037)

## Spl. C.C. No.22/2000; Cr. No.4/1996 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-038)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-038
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.22/2000; Cr. No.4/1996
**Court:** Special Court, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.22/2000; Cr. No.4/1996
**Conviction:** 4 March 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Manager, Taluk Panchayath Office, Chikkodi, Belgaum district
**Sentence:** 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.10,000 + Rs.15,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Belgaum convicted a Manager, Taluk Panchayath Office, Chikkodi, Belgaum district, on 4 March 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.22/2000; Cr. No.4/1996). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.10,000 + Rs.15,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-038)

## Spl. C.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.1/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-039)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-039
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.1/2005
**Court:** Special Court, Bijapur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.1/2005
**Conviction:** 30 March 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bijapur, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Gazetted Assistant, District Health and Family Welfare Office, Bijapur
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with 1 month simple imprisonment in default on each count; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bijapur convicted a Gazetted Assistant, District Health and Family Welfare Office, Bijapur, on 30 March 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.1/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with 1 month simple imprisonment in default on each count; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-039)

## Spl. C.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.1/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-040)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-040
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.1/2005
**Court:** Special Court, Bijapur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.1/2005
**Conviction:** 30 March 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bijapur, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** First Dn. Assistant, District Health and Family Welfare Office, Bijapur
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with 1 month simple imprisonment in default on each count; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Bijapur convicted a First Dn. Assistant, District Health and Family Welfare Office, Bijapur, on 30 March 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.1/2006; Cr. No.1/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 2 years rigorous imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with 1 month simple imprisonment in default on each count; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-040)

## Spl. C.C. No.3/2007; Cr. No.4/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-041)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-041
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.3/2007; Cr. No.4/2006
**Court:** Special Court, Dharwad (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.3/2007; Cr. No.4/2006
**Conviction:** 30 March 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dharwad, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Dn. Assistant, Karnataka Housing Board, Dharwad
**Sentence:** 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Dharwad convicted a Second Dn. Assistant, Karnataka Housing Board, Dharwad, on 30 March 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.3/2007; Cr. No.4/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-041](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-041)

## Spl. C.C. No.3/2006; Cr. No.8/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-042)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-042
**Title:** Spl. C.C. No.3/2006; Cr. No.8/2005
**Court:** Special Court, Dharwad (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Spl. C.C. No.3/2006; Cr. No.8/2005
**Conviction:** 31 March 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dharwad, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
**Official (gated display forms):** Warranting Officer, Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation, Hubli
**Sentence:** 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2009-10 records that the Special Court, Dharwad convicted a Warranting Officer, Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation, Hubli, on 31 March 2010 (Spl. C.C. No.3/2006; Cr. No.8/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sentence recorded is: 6 months simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 7); 1 year simple imprisonment + fine (Sec. 13(1)(d)), with further simple imprisonment in default; fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2009-10.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-042](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-05-042)

## Cr.No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.8/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-001)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-001
**Title:** Cr.No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.8/2005
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.8/2005
**Conviction:** 6 April 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.7
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Office of the Child Development Project Officer, Belgaum
**Sentence:** 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)) + 6 months SI (s.7); fine: Rs.15,000 (s.13(1)(d)) + Rs.10,000 (s.7)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a First Division Assistant, Office of the Child Development Project Officer, Belgaum, on 6 April 2010 (Cr.No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.8/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.7. The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)) + 6 months SI (s.7); fine: Rs.15,000 (s.13(1)(d)) + Rs.10,000 (s.7). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-001)

## Cr.No.5/2007; Spl.C.No.95/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-002)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-002
**Title:** Cr.No.5/2007; Spl.C.No.95/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.5/2007; Spl.C.No.95/2007
**Conviction:** 12 April 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Official (gated display forms):** Block Education Officer, Block Education Office, Kagawad, Belgaum District
**Sentence:** 6 months SI; fine: Rs.25,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Block Education Officer, Block Education Office, Kagawad, Belgaum District, on 12 April 2010 (Cr.No.5/2007; Spl.C.No.95/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7. The sentence recorded is: 6 months SI; fine: Rs.25,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-002)

## Cr.No.11/2005; Spl.C.No.49/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-003)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-003
**Title:** Cr.No.11/2005; Spl.C.No.49/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Hassan (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.11/2005; Spl.C.No.49/2007
**Conviction:** 30 April 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Hassan, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Lab Technician, M. Krishna Government Hospital, Hassan
**Sentence:** 1 year RI; fine: Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Hassan convicted a Lab Technician, M. Krishna Government Hospital, Hassan, on 30 April 2010 (Cr.No.11/2005; Spl.C.No.49/2007). The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI; fine: Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-003)

## Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-004)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-004
**Title:** Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Hassan (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2007
**Conviction:** 30 April 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chitradurga, Karnataka
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(c) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Secretary, Nannivala Grama Panchayath, Challakere, Chitradurga district
**Sentence:** 1 year RI; fine: Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Hassan convicted a Secretary, Nannivala Grama Panchayath, Challakere, Chitradurga district, on 30 April 2010 (Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2007). The conviction was for misappropriation of public money, under PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(c) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI; fine: Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-004)

## Cr.No.1/2005; Spl.C.No.25/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-006)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-006
**Title:** Cr.No.1/2005; Spl.C.No.25/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Udupi (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.1/2005; Spl.C.No.25/2006
**Conviction:** 7 May 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Udupi, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Taluk Survey Supervisor, Office of the Tahsildar, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District
**Sentence:** 1 year SI; fine: Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Udupi convicted a Taluk Survey Supervisor, Office of the Tahsildar, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District, on 7 May 2010 (Cr.No.1/2005; Spl.C.No.25/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI; fine: Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-006)

## Cr.No.9/2006; Spl.C.No.11/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-007)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-007
**Title:** Cr.No.9/2006; Spl.C.No.11/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Chitradurga (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.9/2006; Spl.C.No.11/2006
**Conviction:** 31 May 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chitradurga, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Inspector of Weights and Measure, Department of Legal Metrology, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District
**Sentence:** 6 months SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Chitradurga convicted an Inspector of Weights and Measure, Department of Legal Metrology, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, on 31 May 2010 (Cr.No.9/2006; Spl.C.No.11/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 6 months SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-007)

## Cr.No.7/1999; Spl.C.No.13/2001 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-008)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-008
**Title:** Cr.No.7/1999; Spl.C.No.13/2001
**Court:** Special Judge, Karwar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.7/1999; Spl.C.No.13/2001
**Conviction:** 3 June 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karwar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Block Education Officer, Block Education Office, Mundagod, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar district
**Sentence:** 6 months SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Karwar convicted a Block Education Officer, Block Education Office, Mundagod, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar district, on 3 June 2010 (Cr.No.7/1999; Spl.C.No.13/2001). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 6 months SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-008)

## Cr.No.10/1987; Spl.C.No.97/1995 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-009)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-009
**Title:** Cr.No.10/1987; Spl.C.No.97/1995
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.10/1987; Spl.C.No.97/1995
**Conviction:** 7 June 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Excise, Excise Department, T.N. Pura, Mysore
**Sentence:** 3 years SI; fine: Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Sub-Inspector of Excise, Excise Department, T.N. Pura, Mysore, on 7 June 2010 (Cr.No.10/1987; Spl.C.No.97/1995). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 3 years SI; fine: Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-009)

## Cr.No.3/2002; Spl.C.No.69/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-010)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-010
**Title:** Cr.No.3/2002; Spl.C.No.69/2004
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.3/2002; Spl.C.No.69/2004
**Conviction:** 26 June 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Directorate of Rangayana, Kannada and Culture Department, Mysore
**Sentence:** 2 years SI; fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a First Division Assistant, Directorate of Rangayana, Kannada and Culture Department, Mysore, on 26 June 2010 (Cr.No.3/2002; Spl.C.No.69/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 2 years SI; fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-010](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-010)

## Cr.No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.47/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-011)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-011
**Title:** Cr.No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.47/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Bagalkot (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.47/2009
**Conviction:** 2 July 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bagalkot, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Division Surveyor, Office of the Tahsildar, Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District
**Sentence:** 4 years SI (s.7) + 5 years SI (s.13(1)(d)), concurrent; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.6,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Bagalkot convicted a Second Division Surveyor, Office of the Tahsildar, Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District, on 2 July 2010 (Cr.No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.47/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 4 years SI (s.7) + 5 years SI (s.13(1)(d)), concurrent; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.6,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-011)

## Cr.No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.6/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-012)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-012
**Title:** Cr.No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.6/2004
**Court:** Special Judge, Haveri (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.6/2004
**Conviction:** 26 July 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Haveri, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Grama Chavadi Kacheri, Haveri
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Haveri convicted a Village Accountant, Grama Chavadi Kacheri, Haveri, on 26 July 2010 (Cr.No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.6/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also contains acquittal wording near another mention of the name; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-012)

## Cr.No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.2/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-013)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-013
**Title:** Cr.No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.2/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Dharwad (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.2/2008
**Conviction:** 29 July 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dharwad, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Gazetted Assistant, Office of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Dharwad District
**Sentence:** 6 months SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Dharwad convicted a Gazetted Assistant, Office of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Dharwad District, on 29 July 2010 (Cr.No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.2/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 6 months SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-013)

## Cr.No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.3/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-014)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-014
**Title:** Cr.No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.3/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Bijapur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.3/2006
**Conviction:** 3 August 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bijapur, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Sub-Treasury Office, Sindagi, Bijapur district
**Sentence:** 2 years RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Bijapur convicted a First Division Assistant, Sub-Treasury Office, Sindagi, Bijapur district, on 3 August 2010 (Cr.No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.3/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 2 years RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-014)

## Cr.No.4/2001; Spl.C.No.127/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-015)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-015
**Title:** Cr.No.4/2001; Spl.C.No.127/2004
**Court:** Special Judge, Hassan (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.4/2001; Spl.C.No.127/2004
**Conviction:** 9 August 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Hassan, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e)
**Official (gated display forms):** Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Belur Taluk, Hassan District
**Sentence:** 5 years RI; fine: Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Hassan convicted a Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Belur Taluk, Hassan District, on 9 August 2010 (Cr.No.4/2001; Spl.C.No.127/2004). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e). The sentence recorded is: 5 years RI; fine: Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-015)

## Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.23/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-016)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-016
**Title:** Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.23/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.23/2007
**Conviction:** 10 August 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Secretary, Village Panchayath Office, Kuppalagudda, Raibagh Taluk, Belgaum District
**Sentence:** 1 year SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.1,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Secretary, Village Panchayath Office, Kuppalagudda, Raibagh Taluk, Belgaum District, on 10 August 2010 (Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.23/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-016)

## Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.23/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-017)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-017
**Title:** Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.23/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.23/2007
**Conviction:** 10 August 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Official (gated display forms):** Sepoy (Group-D), Village Panchayath Office, Kuppalagudda, Raibagh Taluk, Belgaum District
**Sentence:** 1 year SI; fine: Rs.1,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Sepoy (Group-D), Village Panchayath Office, Kuppalagudda, Raibagh Taluk, Belgaum District, on 10 August 2010 (Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.23/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7. The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI; fine: Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-017)

## Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.23/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-018)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-018
**Title:** Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.23/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.23/2007
**Conviction:** 10 August 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7
**Official (gated display forms):** Sepoy (Group-D), Village Panchayath Office, Kuppalagudda, Raibagh Taluk, Belgaum District
**Sentence:** 1 year SI; fine: Rs.1,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Sepoy (Group-D), Village Panchayath Office, Kuppalagudda, Raibagh Taluk, Belgaum District, on 10 August 2010 (Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.23/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7. The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI; fine: Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-018)

## Cr.No.2/2005; Spl.C.No.56/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-019)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-019
**Title:** Cr.No.2/2005; Spl.C.No.56/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.2/2005; Spl.C.No.56/2006
**Conviction:** 12 August 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e)
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, T.N. Pura, Mysore
**Sentence:** 1 year RI; fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted an Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, T.N. Pura, Mysore, on 12 August 2010 (Cr.No.2/2005; Spl.C.No.56/2006). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e). The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI; fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also contains acquittal wording near another mention of the name; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-019)

## Cr.No.2/2000; Spl.C.No.20/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-023)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-023
**Title:** Cr.No.2/2000; Spl.C.No.20/2004
**Court:** Special Judge, Bagalkot (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.2/2000; Spl.C.No.20/2004
**Conviction:** 30 August 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bagalkot, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Excise Inspector, Excise Department, Mudhol, Bagalkot District
**Sentence:** 4 years SI; fine: Rs.5,00,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Bagalkot convicted an Excise Inspector, Excise Department, Mudhol, Bagalkot District, on 30 August 2010 (Cr.No.2/2000; Spl.C.No.20/2004). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 4 years SI; fine: Rs.5,00,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-023)

## Cr.No.11/1999; Spl.C.No.1/2003 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-025)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-025
**Title:** Cr.No.11/1999; Spl.C.No.1/2003
**Court:** Special Judge, Karwar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.11/1999; Spl.C.No.1/2003
**Conviction:** 7 September 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karwar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Honnavar, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar district
**Sentence:** 1 year SI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Karwar convicted a Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Honnavar, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar district, on 7 September 2010 (Cr.No.11/1999; Spl.C.No.1/2003). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-025)

## Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.8/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-028)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-028
**Title:** Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.8/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Chamarajanagar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.8/2008
**Conviction:** 22 September 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chamarajanagar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajnagar Taluk and District, Chamarajanagar district
**Sentence:** 1 year SI; fine: Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Chamarajanagar convicted a Revenue Inspector, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajnagar Taluk and District, Chamarajanagar district, on 22 September 2010 (Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.8/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI; fine: Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-028)

## Cr.No.12/1995; Spl.C.No.133/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-029)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-029
**Title:** Cr.No.12/1995; Spl.C.No.133/2004
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.12/1995; Spl.C.No.133/2004
**Conviction:** 24 September 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore Rural, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Village Accountant), Bangalore Rural district
**Sentence:** 2 years SI; fine: Rs.24,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue Department (Village Accountant), Bangalore Rural district, on 24 September 2010 (Cr.No.12/1995; Spl.C.No.133/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 2 years SI; fine: Rs.24,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: a co-accused is recorded as acquitted in the same source entry.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-029)

## Cr.No.5/2001; Spl.C.No.14/2003 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-030)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-030
**Title:** Cr.No.5/2001; Spl.C.No.14/2003
**Court:** Special Judge, Mangalore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.5/2001; Spl.C.No.14/2003
**Conviction:** 24 September 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mangalore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Tahsildar, Nada Kacheri, Moodabidare, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore district
**Sentence:** 2 years RI (s.7) + 5 years RI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.25,000 + Rs.50,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mangalore convicted a Deputy Tahsildar, Nada Kacheri, Moodabidare, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore district, on 24 September 2010 (Cr.No.5/2001; Spl.C.No.14/2003). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 2 years RI (s.7) + 5 years RI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.25,000 + Rs.50,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name's initials could not be confirmed in the source entry.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-030)

## Cr.No.5/2007; Spl.C.No.6/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-031)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-031
**Title:** Cr.No.5/2007; Spl.C.No.6/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Haveri (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.5/2007; Spl.C.No.6/2007
**Conviction:** 29 September 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Haveri, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Range Forest Officer, Forest Department, Ranebennur, Haveri District
**Sentence:** 1 year SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Haveri convicted a Range Forest Officer, Forest Department, Ranebennur, Haveri District, on 29 September 2010 (Cr.No.5/2007; Spl.C.No.6/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-031)

## Cr.No.9/1999; Spl.C.No.171/2002 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-032)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-032
**Title:** Cr.No.9/1999; Spl.C.No.171/2002
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.9/1999; Spl.C.No.171/2002
**Conviction:** 1 October 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e)
**Official (gated display forms):** Excise Inspector, Excise Department, Mysore
**Sentence:** 3 years 6 months RI; fine: Rs.3,50,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted an Excise Inspector, Excise Department, Mysore, on 1 October 2010 (Cr.No.9/1999; Spl.C.No.171/2002). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e). The sentence recorded is: 3 years 6 months RI; fine: Rs.3,50,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-032)

## Cr.No.7/2006; Spl.C.No.4/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-034)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-034
**Title:** Cr.No.7/2006; Spl.C.No.4/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Koppal (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.7/2006; Spl.C.No.4/2007
**Conviction:** 5 October 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Koppal, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Koppal
**Sentence:** 6 months imprisonment (s.7) + 2 years imprisonment (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Koppal convicted an Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Koppal, on 5 October 2010 (Cr.No.7/2006; Spl.C.No.4/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 6 months imprisonment (s.7) + 2 years imprisonment (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-034)

## Cr.No.9/2006; Spl.C.No.78/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-036)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-036
**Title:** Cr.No.9/2006; Spl.C.No.78/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.9/2006; Spl.C.No.78/2006
**Conviction:** 23 October 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Tahsildar Office, Athani Taluk, Belgaum District
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a First Division Assistant, Tahsildar Office, Athani Taluk, Belgaum District, on 23 October 2010 (Cr.No.9/2006; Spl.C.No.78/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-036)

## Cr.No.15/2003; Spl.C.No.140/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-037)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-037
**Title:** Cr.No.15/2003; Spl.C.No.140/2004
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.15/2003; Spl.C.No.140/2004
**Conviction:** 29 October 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Excise Department, Kuvempunagar, Mysore
**Sentence:** 2 years imprisonment (s.7) + 3 years imprisonment (s.13(1)/13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.15,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Excise Department, Kuvempunagar, Mysore, on 29 October 2010 (Cr.No.15/2003; Spl.C.No.140/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 2 years imprisonment (s.7) + 3 years imprisonment (s.13(1)/13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.15,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-037)

## Cr.No.4/2005; Spl.C.No.1/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-038)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-038
**Title:** Cr.No.4/2005; Spl.C.No.1/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Bidar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.4/2005; Spl.C.No.1/2006
**Conviction:** 3 November 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bidar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** I/c Revenue Inspector, Revenue Department, Bidar
**Sentence:** 3 years RI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Bidar convicted an I/c Revenue Inspector, Revenue Department, Bidar, on 3 November 2010 (Cr.No.4/2005; Spl.C.No.1/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 3 years RI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-038)

## Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.47/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-039)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-039
**Title:** Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.47/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.47/2007
**Conviction:** 9 November 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Director of Food, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Mysore
**Sentence:** 1 year SI (s.7) + 3 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Deputy Director of Food, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Mysore, on 9 November 2010 (Cr.No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.47/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI (s.7) + 3 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-039)

## Cr.No.8/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-040)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-040
**Title:** Cr.No.8/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Bidar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.8/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2008
**Conviction:** 15 November 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bidar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Division Surveyor, Office of the Tahsildar, Auradh Taluk, Bidar District
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7) + 6 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Bidar convicted a Second Division Surveyor, Office of the Tahsildar, Auradh Taluk, Bidar District, on 15 November 2010 (Cr.No.8/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI (s.7) + 6 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-040)

## Cr.No.15/2006; Spl.C.No.4/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-041)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-041
**Title:** Cr.No.15/2006; Spl.C.No.4/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Chitradurga (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.15/2006; Spl.C.No.4/2007
**Conviction:** 16 November 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chitradurga, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Secretary, Madakaripura Village Panchayath, Chitradurga District
**Sentence:** 6 months RI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Chitradurga convicted a Secretary, Madakaripura Village Panchayath, Chitradurga District, on 16 November 2010 (Cr.No.15/2006; Spl.C.No.4/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 6 months RI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-041](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-041)

## Cr.No.14/2006; Spl.C.No.71/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-043)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-043
**Title:** Cr.No.14/2006; Spl.C.No.71/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.14/2006; Spl.C.No.71/2007
**Conviction:** 6 December 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore
**Sentence:** 1 month SI (s.7) + 2 months SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a First Division Assistant, Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore, on 6 December 2010 (Cr.No.14/2006; Spl.C.No.71/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 month SI (s.7) + 2 months SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-043](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-043)

## Cr.No.3/2002; Spl.C.No.66/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-044)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-044
**Title:** Cr.No.3/2002; Spl.C.No.66/2004
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.3/2002; Spl.C.No.66/2004
**Conviction:** 8 December 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, District Treasury Office, Belgaum
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a First Division Assistant, District Treasury Office, Belgaum, on 8 December 2010 (Cr.No.3/2002; Spl.C.No.66/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-044](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-044)

## Cr.No.9/2005; Spl.C.No.34/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-045)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-045
**Title:** Cr.No.9/2005; Spl.C.No.34/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.9/2005; Spl.C.No.34/2006
**Conviction:** 18 December 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue Department, Athani Taluk, Belgaum District
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue Department, Athani Taluk, Belgaum District, on 18 December 2010 (Cr.No.9/2005; Spl.C.No.34/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-045](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-045)

## Cr.No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.3/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-046)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-046
**Title:** Cr.No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.3/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Chitradurga (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.3/2007
**Conviction:** 24 December 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chitradurga, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga
**Sentence:** 1 year SI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.10,000 + Rs.20,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Chitradurga convicted a First Division Assistant, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, on 24 December 2010 (Cr.No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.3/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.10,000 + Rs.20,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-046](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-046)

## Cr.No.2/2000; Spl.C.No.19/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-047)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-047
**Title:** Cr.No.2/2000; Spl.C.No.19/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.2/2000; Spl.C.No.19/2007
**Conviction:** 27 December 2010
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Division Assistant, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division
**Sentence:** 1 year SI; fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Second Division Assistant, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, on 27 December 2010 (Cr.No.2/2000; Spl.C.No.19/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI; fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: a co-accused is recorded as acquitted in the same source entry.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-047](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-047)

## Cr.No.5/2007; Spl.C.No.2/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-049)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-049
**Title:** Cr.No.5/2007; Spl.C.No.2/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Gadag (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.5/2007; Spl.C.No.2/2008
**Conviction:** 10 January 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Gadag, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue Department, Belahodu, Gadag District
**Sentence:** 2 years RI (s.7) + 3 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.10,000 + Rs.20 (as printed)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Gadag convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue Department, Belahodu, Gadag District, on 10 January 2011 (Cr.No.5/2007; Spl.C.No.2/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 2 years RI (s.7) + 3 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.10,000 + Rs.20 (as printed). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-049](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-049)

## Cr.No.1/2003; Spl.C.No.1/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-050)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-050
**Title:** Cr.No.1/2003; Spl.C.No.1/2004
**Court:** Special Judge, Haveri (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.1/2003; Spl.C.No.1/2004
**Conviction:** 20 January 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Haveri, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Hanagal, Haveri District
**Sentence:** 1 year SI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Haveri convicted a Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Hanagal, Haveri District, on 20 January 2011 (Cr.No.1/2003; Spl.C.No.1/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-050](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-050)

## Cr.No.7/2007; Spl.C.No.59/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-051)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-051
**Title:** Cr.No.7/2007; Spl.C.No.59/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.7/2007; Spl.C.No.59/2008
**Conviction:** 22 January 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Mysore City Corporation, Mysore
**Sentence:** 1 year RI; fine: Rs.15,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a First Division Assistant, Mysore City Corporation, Mysore, on 22 January 2011 (Cr.No.7/2007; Spl.C.No.59/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI; fine: Rs.15,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-051](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-051)

## Cr.No.11/2006; Spl.C.No.11/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-052)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-052
**Title:** Cr.No.11/2006; Spl.C.No.11/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.11/2006; Spl.C.No.11/2007
**Conviction:** 29 January 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Division Assistant, Grama Panchayath, Katakabhavi, Raibag Taluk, Belgaum District
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7) + 1 year RI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Second Division Assistant, Grama Panchayath, Katakabhavi, Raibag Taluk, Belgaum District, on 29 January 2011 (Cr.No.11/2006; Spl.C.No.11/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI (s.7) + 1 year RI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-052](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-052)

## Cr.No.11/2006; Spl.C.No.11/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-053)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-053
**Title:** Cr.No.11/2006; Spl.C.No.11/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.11/2006; Spl.C.No.11/2007
**Conviction:** 29 January 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Secretary, Grama Panchayath, Katakabhavi, Raibag Taluk, Belgaum District
**Sentence:** 1 year RI (s.7) + 1 year RI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Secretary, Grama Panchayath, Katakabhavi, Raibag Taluk, Belgaum District, on 29 January 2011 (Cr.No.11/2006; Spl.C.No.11/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI (s.7) + 1 year RI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-053](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-053)

## Cr.No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.3/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-054)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-054
**Title:** Cr.No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.3/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Chamarajanagar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.3/2007
**Conviction:** 31 January 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chamarajanagar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Survey Supervisor, Office of the Tahsildar, Chamarajnagar Taluk, Chamarajanagar district
**Sentence:** 1 year SI; fine: Rs.1,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Chamarajanagar convicted a Survey Supervisor, Office of the Tahsildar, Chamarajnagar Taluk, Chamarajanagar district, on 31 January 2011 (Cr.No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.3/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI; fine: Rs.1,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-054](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-054)

## Cr.No.9/2006; Spl.C.No.6/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-055)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-055
**Title:** Cr.No.9/2006; Spl.C.No.6/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Shimoga (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.9/2006; Spl.C.No.6/2007
**Conviction:** 1 February 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Shimoga, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, District Treasury Office, Shimoga
**Sentence:** 3 years SI (s.7) + 3 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: not printed

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Shimoga convicted a First Division Assistant, District Treasury Office, Shimoga, on 1 February 2011 (Cr.No.9/2006; Spl.C.No.6/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 3 years SI (s.7) + 3 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: not printed. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-055](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-055)

## Cr.No.3/2002; Spl.C.No.3/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-056)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-056
**Title:** Cr.No.3/2002; Spl.C.No.3/2004
**Court:** Special Judge, Haveri (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.3/2002; Spl.C.No.3/2004
**Conviction:** 3 February 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Haveri, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Director, Department of Women and Child Development, Haveri District
**Sentence:** 6 months SI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Haveri convicted an Assistant Director, Department of Women and Child Development, Haveri District, on 3 February 2011 (Cr.No.3/2002; Spl.C.No.3/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 6 months SI (s.7) + 2 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.1,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-056](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-056)

## Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.20/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-057)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-057
**Title:** Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.20/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.20/2008
**Conviction:** 11 February 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Belagere Hobli, Nanjanagud Taluk, Mysore district
**Sentence:** 1 year RI; fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Revenue Inspector, Belagere Hobli, Nanjanagud Taluk, Mysore district, on 11 February 2011 (Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.20/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI; fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-057](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-057)

## Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.20/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-058)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-058
**Title:** Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.20/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.20/2008
**Conviction:** 11 February 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Nagarale Circle, Nanjanagud Taluk, Mysore district
**Sentence:** 1 year RI; fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Village Accountant, Nagarale Circle, Nanjanagud Taluk, Mysore district, on 11 February 2011 (Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.20/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI; fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-058](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-058)

## Cr.No.2/2009; Spl.C.No.2/2010 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-059)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-059
**Title:** Cr.No.2/2009; Spl.C.No.2/2010
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.2/2009; Spl.C.No.2/2010
**Conviction:** 15 February 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kolar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Tahsildar Office, Malur, Kolar (Attakodi Grama)
**Sentence:** 4 years RI; fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Village Accountant, Tahsildar Office, Malur, Kolar (Attakodi Grama), on 15 February 2011 (Cr.No.2/2009; Spl.C.No.2/2010). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 4 years RI; fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-059](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-059)

## Cr.No.11/2006; Spl.C.No.36/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-060)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-060
**Title:** Cr.No.11/2006; Spl.C.No.36/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.11/2006; Spl.C.No.36/2007
**Conviction:** 19 February 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Nadakacheri, Hullahalli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District
**Sentence:** 1 year RI; fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Revenue Inspector, Nadakacheri, Hullahalli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District, on 19 February 2011 (Cr.No.11/2006; Spl.C.No.36/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI; fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-060](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-060)

## Cr.No.4/2005; Spl.C.No.4/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-061)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-061
**Title:** Cr.No.4/2005; Spl.C.No.4/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Chamarajanagar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.4/2005; Spl.C.No.4/2007
**Conviction:** 18 February 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chamarajanagar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Surgeon, District Hospital, Chamarajanagar
**Sentence:** 1 year SI; fine: Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Chamarajanagar convicted a Senior Surgeon, District Hospital, Chamarajanagar, on 18 February 2011 (Cr.No.4/2005; Spl.C.No.4/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI; fine: Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-061](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-061)

## Cr.No.17/1998; Spl.C.No.110/2001 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-062)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-062
**Title:** Cr.No.17/1998; Spl.C.No.110/2001
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.17/1998; Spl.C.No.110/2001
**Conviction:** 23 February 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Secretary, Byrapura Mandal Panchayath, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District
**Sentence:** 1.5 years RI; fine: Rs.1,50,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Secretary, Byrapura Mandal Panchayath, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District, on 23 February 2011 (Cr.No.17/1998; Spl.C.No.110/2001). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1.5 years RI; fine: Rs.1,50,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-062](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-062)

## Cr.No.1/2003; Spl.C.No.34/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-063)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-063
**Title:** Cr.No.1/2003; Spl.C.No.34/2004
**Court:** Special Judge, Karwar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.1/2003; Spl.C.No.34/2004
**Conviction:** 25 February 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karwar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Shirastedar, Office of the Tahsildar, Siddapur, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar district
**Sentence:** 1 year SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Karwar convicted a Shirastedar, Office of the Tahsildar, Siddapur, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar district, on 25 February 2011 (Cr.No.1/2003; Spl.C.No.34/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-063](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-063)

## Cr.No.7/2006; Spl.C.No.6/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-064)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-064
**Title:** Cr.No.7/2006; Spl.C.No.6/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Koppal (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.7/2006; Spl.C.No.6/2007
**Conviction:** 26 February 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Koppal, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Administrative Medical Officer, General Hospital, Gangavathi, Koppal District
**Sentence:** 6 months SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Koppal convicted an Administrative Medical Officer, General Hospital, Gangavathi, Koppal District, on 26 February 2011 (Cr.No.7/2006; Spl.C.No.6/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 6 months SI (s.7) + 1 year SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-064](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-064)

## Cr.No.33/1996; Spl.C.No.15/1998 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-065)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-065
**Title:** Cr.No.33/1996; Spl.C.No.15/1998
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.33/1996; Spl.C.No.15/1998
**Conviction:** 28 February 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Chief Accountant, Office of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belgaum District
**Sentence:** 2 years RI (s.7) + 2.5 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Chief Accountant, Office of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belgaum District, on 28 February 2011 (Cr.No.33/1996; Spl.C.No.15/1998). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 2 years RI (s.7) + 2.5 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-065](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-065)

## Cr.No.10/2007; Spl.C.No.5/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-066)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-066
**Title:** Cr.No.10/2007; Spl.C.No.5/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.10/2007; Spl.C.No.5/2009
**Conviction:** 1 March 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning, Department of Town and Country Planning, Mysore
**Sentence:** 1 year SI; fine: Rs.15,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted an Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning, Department of Town and Country Planning, Mysore, on 1 March 2011 (Cr.No.10/2007; Spl.C.No.5/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI; fine: Rs.15,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-066](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-066)

## Cr.No.6/2008; Spl.C.No.83/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-067)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-067
**Title:** Cr.No.6/2008; Spl.C.No.83/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Bagalkot (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.6/2008; Spl.C.No.83/2009
**Conviction:** 1 March 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bagalkot, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue Department, Halaki Village, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District
**Sentence:** 4 years SI (s.7) + 5 years SI (s.13(1)(d)), concurrent; fine: Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Bagalkot convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue Department, Halaki Village, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District, on 1 March 2011 (Cr.No.6/2008; Spl.C.No.83/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 4 years SI (s.7) + 5 years SI (s.13(1)(d)), concurrent; fine: Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-067](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-067)

## Cr.No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.46/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-068)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-068
**Title:** Cr.No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.46/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.46/2007
**Conviction:** 5 February 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Surveyor, Office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Mysore
**Sentence:** 1 year SI; fine: Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Surveyor, Office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Mysore, on 5 February 2011 (Cr.No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.46/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI; fine: Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-068](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-068)

## Cr.No.10/2008; Spl.C.No.14/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-069)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-069
**Title:** Cr.No.10/2008; Spl.C.No.14/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Bijapur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.10/2008; Spl.C.No.14/2009
**Conviction:** 8 March 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bijapur, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7 r/w s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.13(1) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Division Assistant, Karnataka Housing Board, Bijapur
**Sentence:** 2 years RI + 2 years RI, concurrent; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Bijapur convicted a Second Division Assistant, Karnataka Housing Board, Bijapur, on 8 March 2011 (Cr.No.10/2008; Spl.C.No.14/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7 r/w s.13(2); PC Act 1988 s.13(1) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 2 years RI + 2 years RI, concurrent; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-069](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-069)

## Cr.No.3/2004; Spl.C.No.93/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-070)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-070
**Title:** Cr.No.3/2004; Spl.C.No.93/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.3/2004; Spl.C.No.93/2007
**Conviction:** 18 March 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Professor, Surgical Unit, Mysore Medical College, Mysore
**Sentence:** 1 year SI; fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Professor, Surgical Unit, Mysore Medical College, Mysore, on 18 March 2011 (Cr.No.3/2004; Spl.C.No.93/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI; fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-070](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-070)

## Cr.No.3/2007; Spl.C.No.9/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-071)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-071
**Title:** Cr.No.3/2007; Spl.C.No.9/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Davanagere (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.3/2007; Spl.C.No.9/2007
**Conviction:** 24 March 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Davanagere, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Block Education Officer, Block Education Office, South Division, Davanagere
**Sentence:** 6 months RI (s.7) + imprisonment (s.13(1)(d), term as printed); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Davanagere convicted a Block Education Officer, Block Education Office, South Division, Davanagere, on 24 March 2011 (Cr.No.3/2007; Spl.C.No.9/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 6 months RI (s.7) + imprisonment (s.13(1)(d), term as printed); fine: Rs.2,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-071](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-071)

## Cr.No.18/2007; Spl.C.No.78/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-072)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-072
**Title:** Cr.No.18/2007; Spl.C.No.78/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.18/2007; Spl.C.No.78/2008
**Conviction:** 28 March 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Athani, Belgaum District
**Sentence:** 2.5 years RI (s.7) + 2.5 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.15,000 + Rs.8,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Athani, Belgaum District, on 28 March 2011 (Cr.No.18/2007; Spl.C.No.78/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 2.5 years RI (s.7) + 2.5 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.15,000 + Rs.8,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-072](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-072)

## Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.3/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-073)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-073
**Title:** Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.3/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Bidar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.3/2008
**Conviction:** 28 March 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bidar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)
**Official (gated display forms):** Surveyor, Survey Office, Basavakalyana, Bidar district
**Sentence:** 3 years RI (s.7) + 5 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Bidar convicted a Surveyor, Survey Office, Basavakalyana, Bidar district, on 28 March 2011 (Cr.No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.3/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d). The sentence recorded is: 3 years RI (s.7) + 5 years SI (s.13(1)(d)); fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-073](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-073)

## Cr.No.20/1995; Spl.C.No.37/1999 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-074)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-074
**Title:** Cr.No.20/1995; Spl.C.No.37/1999
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.20/1995; Spl.C.No.37/1999
**Conviction:** 28 March 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Conservation Engineer, Archaeology Department, Mysore
**Sentence:** 3 years RI; fine: Rs.63 lakh (as printed 'Rs.63. Laks')

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted an Assistant Conservation Engineer, Archaeology Department, Mysore, on 28 March 2011 (Cr.No.20/1995; Spl.C.No.37/1999). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(e) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 3 years RI; fine: Rs.63 lakh (as printed 'Rs.63. Laks'). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-074](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-074)

## Cr.No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.8/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-075)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-075
**Title:** Cr.No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.8/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Chitradurga (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.8/2006
**Conviction:** 30 March 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chitradurga, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Agriculture Officer, Agriculture Department, Tuminakatte, Ranebennur Taluk, Haveri District, Chitradurga district
**Sentence:** 1 year SI (s.7) + 3 months SI (s.13(1)(d)), concurrent; fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Chitradurga convicted an Assistant Agriculture Officer, Agriculture Department, Tuminakatte, Ranebennur Taluk, Haveri District, Chitradurga district, on 30 March 2011 (Cr.No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.8/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI (s.7) + 3 months SI (s.13(1)(d)), concurrent; fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-075](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-075)

## Cr.No.3/2007; Spl.C.No.2/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-076)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-076
**Title:** Cr.No.3/2007; Spl.C.No.2/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Shimoga (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Cr.No.3/2007; Spl.C.No.2/2008
**Conviction:** 31 March 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Shimoga, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Division Assistant, District Social Welfare Office, Shimoga
**Sentence:** 1 year SI (s.7) + 2 months SI (s.13(1)(d)), concurrent; fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2010-11 records that the Special Judge, Shimoga convicted a Second Division Assistant, District Social Welfare Office, Shimoga, on 31 March 2011 (Cr.No.3/2007; Spl.C.No.2/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2). The sentence recorded is: 1 year SI (s.7) + 2 months SI (s.13(1)(d)), concurrent; fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2010-11.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-076](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-06-076)

## Crime No.10/2006; Spl.C.No.81/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-001)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-001
**Title:** Crime No.10/2006; Spl.C.No.81/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore Rural (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.10/2006; Spl.C.No.81/2007
**Conviction:** 7 April 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore Rural, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Education, Bangalore Rural district
**Sentence:** SI 2 years (Sec.7); SI 1 month (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore Rural convicted a First Division Assistant, Education, Bangalore Rural district, on 7 April 2011 (Crime No.10/2006; Spl.C.No.81/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 2 years (Sec.7); SI 1 month (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-001)

## Crime No.7/2008; Spl.C.No.59/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-002)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-002
**Title:** Crime No.7/2008; Spl.C.No.59/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.7/2008; Spl.C.No.59/2009
**Conviction:** 8 April 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Education, Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year; fine: Rs.5,000 (default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a First Division Assistant, Education, Mysore district, on 8 April 2011 (Crime No.7/2008; Spl.C.No.59/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year; fine: Rs.5,000 (default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-002)

## Crime No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.90/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-004)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-004
**Title:** Crime No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.90/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore Rural (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.90/2006
**Conviction:** 28 April 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore Rural, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue, Bangalore Rural district
**Sentence:** RI 2 years (default RI 6 months); fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore Rural convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue, Bangalore Rural district, on 28 April 2011 (Crime No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.90/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 2 years (default RI 6 months); fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-004)

## Crime No.15/2006; Spl.C.No.27/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-005)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-005
**Title:** Crime No.15/2006; Spl.C.No.27/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.15/2006; Spl.C.No.27/2008
**Conviction:** 2 May 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Executive Officer, Muzrai/Temple Administration, Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (default SI 3 months); fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted an Executive Officer, Muzrai/Temple Administration, Mysore district, on 2 May 2011 (Crime No.15/2006; Spl.C.No.27/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (default SI 3 months); fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-005](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-005)

## Crime No.5/2005; Spl.C.No.7/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-006)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-006
**Title:** Crime No.5/2005; Spl.C.No.7/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.5/2005; Spl.C.No.7/2008
**Conviction:** 3 May 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Public Prosecutor, Prosecution, Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (default SI 3 months); fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted an Assistant Public Prosecutor, Prosecution, Mysore district, on 3 May 2011 (Crime No.5/2005; Spl.C.No.7/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (default SI 3 months); fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-006)

## Crime No.12/2005; Spl.C.No.2/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-007)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-007
**Title:** Crime No.12/2005; Spl.C.No.2/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.12/2005; Spl.C.No.2/2007
**Conviction:** 19 May 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue, Mysore district
**Sentence:** SI 1 year (Sec.7); SI 3 years (7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.20,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue, Mysore district, on 19 May 2011 (Crime No.12/2005; Spl.C.No.2/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 1 year (Sec.7); SI 3 years (7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.20,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-007](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-007)

## Crime No.6/2007; Spl.C.No.54/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-008)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-008
**Title:** Crime No.6/2007; Spl.C.No.54/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.6/2007; Spl.C.No.54/2009
**Conviction:** 14 June 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Taluk Surveyor, Revenue (Survey), Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (default SI 3 months); fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Taluk Surveyor, Revenue (Survey), Mysore district, on 14 June 2011 (Crime No.6/2007; Spl.C.No.54/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (default SI 3 months); fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-008)

## Crime No.8/1996; Spl.C.No.53/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-009)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-009
**Title:** Crime No.8/1996; Spl.C.No.53/2005
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.8/1996; Spl.C.No.53/2005
**Conviction:** 16 June 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Forest, Belgaum district
**Sentence:** RI 6 months (Sec.7); RI 1 year (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a First Division Assistant, Forest, Belgaum district, on 16 June 2011 (Crime No.8/1996; Spl.C.No.53/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 6 months (Sec.7); RI 1 year (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.2,500 + Rs.2,500. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-009)

## Crime No.16/2006; Spl.C.No.26/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-011)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-011
**Title:** Crime No.16/2006; Spl.C.No.26/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.16/2006; Spl.C.No.26/2008
**Conviction:** 22 June 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Supervisor, Women & Child Development, Mysore district
**Sentence:** SI 3 years (default SI 1 year); fine: Rs.15,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Supervisor, Women & Child Development, Mysore district, on 22 June 2011 (Crime No.16/2006; Spl.C.No.26/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 3 years (default SI 1 year); fine: Rs.15,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-011)

## Crime No.11/2007; Spl.C.No.64/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-012)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-012
**Title:** Crime No.11/2007; Spl.C.No.64/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.11/2007; Spl.C.No.64/2008
**Conviction:** 23 June 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue, Mysore district
**Sentence:** SI 2 years (default SI 6 months); fine: Rs.8,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue, Mysore district, on 23 June 2011 (Crime No.11/2007; Spl.C.No.64/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 2 years (default SI 6 months); fine: Rs.8,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also records an acquittal; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-012)

## Crime No.13/2005; Spl.C.No.6/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-013)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-013
**Title:** Crime No.13/2005; Spl.C.No.6/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.13/2005; Spl.C.No.6/2006
**Conviction:** 25 June 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Tax Collector, Municipal, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (default SI 6 months); fine: Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore City convicted a Tax Collector, Municipal, Bangalore City district, on 25 June 2011 (Crime No.13/2005; Spl.C.No.6/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (default SI 6 months); fine: Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-013)

## Crime No.3/2007; Spl.C.No.16/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-014)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-014
**Title:** Crime No.3/2007; Spl.C.No.16/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.3/2007; Spl.C.No.16/2008
**Conviction:** 27 June 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Belgaum district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (Sec.7); RI 2 years (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.3,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Belgaum district, on 27 June 2011 (Crime No.3/2007; Spl.C.No.16/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (Sec.7); RI 2 years (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.3,000 + Rs.3,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-014)

## Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.2/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-015)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-015
**Title:** Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.2/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Bidar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.2/2009
**Conviction:** 30 June 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bidar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Head Master, Education, Bidar district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (Sec.7); RI 2 years (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.22,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bidar convicted a Head Master, Education, Bidar district, on 30 June 2011 (Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.2/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (Sec.7); RI 2 years (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.22,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-015)

## Crime No.5/2003; Spl.C.No.67/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-016)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-016
**Title:** Crime No.5/2003; Spl.C.No.67/2004
**Court:** Special Judge, Tumkur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.5/2003; Spl.C.No.67/2004
**Conviction:** 2 July 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tumkur, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.13(1)(e) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Surveyor, Revenue (Survey), Tumkur district
**Sentence:** SI 1 year (default SI 3 months); fine: Rs.8,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Tumkur convicted a Surveyor, Revenue (Survey), Tumkur district, on 2 July 2011 (Crime No.5/2003; Spl.C.No.67/2004). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Sec.13(1)(e) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 1 year (default SI 3 months); fine: Rs.8,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-016)

## Crime No.2/1999; Spl.C.No.16/2000 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-017)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-017
**Title:** Crime No.2/1999; Spl.C.No.16/2000
**Court:** Special Judge, Gadag (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.2/1999; Spl.C.No.16/2000
**Conviction:** 2 July 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Gadag, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Municipal, Gadag district
**Sentence:** SI 2 years (Sec.7); RI 1 year (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Gadag convicted a First Division Assistant, Municipal, Gadag district, on 2 July 2011 (Crime No.2/1999; Spl.C.No.16/2000). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 2 years (Sec.7); RI 1 year (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also records an acquittal; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-017)

## Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.5/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-019)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-019
**Title:** Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.5/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Koppal (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.5/2007
**Conviction:** 8 July 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Koppal, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Director of Agriculture, Koppal district
**Sentence:** SI 1 year (Sec.7); SI 2 years (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.10,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Koppal convicted an Assistant Director of Agriculture, Koppal district, on 8 July 2011 (Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.5/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 1 year (Sec.7); SI 2 years (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.10,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-019)

## Crime No.30/2005; Spl.C.No.48/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-020)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-020
**Title:** Crime No.30/2005; Spl.C.No.48/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.30/2005; Spl.C.No.48/2006
**Conviction:** 13 July 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** District Health and Family Welfare Officer, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** RI 9 months (Sec.7); RI 1 year (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore City convicted a District Health and Family Welfare Officer, Bangalore City district, on 13 July 2011 (Crime No.30/2005; Spl.C.No.48/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 9 months (Sec.7); RI 1 year (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-020](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-020)

## Crime No.5/2006; Spl.C.No.86/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-021)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-021
**Title:** Crime No.5/2006; Spl.C.No.86/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.5/2006; Spl.C.No.86/2006
**Conviction:** 21 July 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bellary, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue, Bellary district
**Sentence:** SI 2 years (Sec.7); as stated for 13(1)(d); fine: Rs.15,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore City convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue, Bellary district, on 21 July 2011 (Crime No.5/2006; Spl.C.No.86/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 2 years (Sec.7); as stated for 13(1)(d); fine: Rs.15,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-021)

## Crime No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.2/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-022)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-022
**Title:** Crime No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.2/2005
**Court:** Special Judge, Gadag (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.2/2005
**Conviction:** 23 July 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Gadag, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Gadag district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (Sec.7); RI 1 year (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Gadag convicted a Revenue Inspector, Gadag district, on 23 July 2011 (Crime No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.2/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (Sec.7); RI 1 year (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-022)

## Crime No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.2/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-023)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-023
**Title:** Crime No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.2/2005
**Court:** Special Judge, Gadag (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.2/2005
**Conviction:** 23 July 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Gadag, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Statistical Inspector, Revenue, Gadag district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year (Sec.7); RI 1 year (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Gadag convicted a Statistical Inspector, Revenue, Gadag district, on 23 July 2011 (Crime No.1/2004; Spl.C.No.2/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) & 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year (Sec.7); RI 1 year (13(1)(d) & 13(2)); fine: Rs.5,000 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-023)

## Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.126/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-024)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-024
**Title:** Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.126/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Chamarajnagar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.126/2009
**Conviction:** 23 July 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chamarajanagar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Executive Officer, Panchayat Raj, Chamarajanagar district
**Sentence:** SI 4 years (default SI 5 months); fine: Rs.25,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Chamarajnagar convicted an Executive Officer, Panchayat Raj, Chamarajanagar district, on 23 July 2011 (Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.126/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 4 years (default SI 5 months); fine: Rs.25,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-024](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-024)

## Crime No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.12/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-025)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-025
**Title:** Crime No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.12/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Udupi (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.12/2007
**Conviction:** 26 July 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Udupi, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue, Udupi district
**Sentence:** SI 1 year + fine 2,500 (Sec.7); SI 2 years + fine 2,500 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)), concurrent

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Udupi convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue, Udupi district, on 26 July 2011 (Crime No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.12/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 1 year + fine 2,500 (Sec.7); SI 2 years + fine 2,500 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)), concurrent. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-025)

## Crime No.7/2004; Spl.C.No.34/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-026)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-026
**Title:** Crime No.7/2004; Spl.C.No.34/2005
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.7/2004; Spl.C.No.34/2005
**Conviction:** 30 July 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Revenue, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** RI 6 months + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 1.5 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d)), concurrent

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore City convicted a First Division Assistant, Revenue, Bangalore City district, on 30 July 2011 (Crime No.7/2004; Spl.C.No.34/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 6 months + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 1.5 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d)), concurrent. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-026)

## Crime No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2010 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-027)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-027
**Title:** Crime No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2010
**Court:** Special Judge, Yadgir (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2010
**Conviction:** 30 July 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Yadgir, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Office Superintendent, Social Welfare, Yadgir district
**Sentence:** RI 5 years + fine 20,000 (Sec.7); RI 7 years + fine 40,000 (13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Yadgir convicted an Office Superintendent, Social Welfare, Yadgir district, on 30 July 2011 (Crime No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2010). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 5 years + fine 20,000 (Sec.7); RI 7 years + fine 40,000 (13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also contains acquittal wording near another mention of the name; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-027](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-027)

## Crime No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2010 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-028)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-028
**Title:** Crime No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2010
**Court:** Special Judge, Yadgir (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2010
**Conviction:** 30 July 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Yadgir, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Social Welfare, Yadgir district
**Sentence:** RI 5 years + fine 20,000 (Sec.7); RI 7 years + fine 40,000 (13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Yadgir convicted a First Division Assistant, Social Welfare, Yadgir district, on 30 July 2011 (Crime No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.1/2010). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 5 years + fine 20,000 (Sec.7); RI 7 years + fine 40,000 (13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the name and conviction wording are matched in the source entry, but the date or case number shown is as extracted from the entry and was not matched in the cited passage.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-028](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-028)

## Crime No.14/2004; Spl.C.No.55/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-029)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-029
**Title:** Crime No.14/2004; Spl.C.No.55/2005
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.14/2004; Spl.C.No.55/2005
**Conviction:** 1 August 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant, Secretariat, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** RI 6 months + fine 500 (Sec.7); RI 15 days + fine 600 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.500 + Rs.600

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore City convicted an Assistant, Secretariat, Bangalore City district, on 1 August 2011 (Crime No.14/2004; Spl.C.No.55/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 6 months + fine 500 (Sec.7); RI 15 days + fine 600 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)), concurrent; fine: Rs.500 + Rs.600. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-029)

## Crime No.14/2007; Spl.C.No.66/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-030)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-030
**Title:** Crime No.14/2007; Spl.C.No.66/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.14/2007; Spl.C.No.66/2008
**Conviction:** 4 August 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Division Assistant, Revenue, Belgaum district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 2,500 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 2,500 (13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Second Division Assistant, Revenue, Belgaum district, on 4 August 2011 (Crime No.14/2007; Spl.C.No.66/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 2,500 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 2,500 (13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-030)

## Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.1/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-031)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-031
**Title:** Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.1/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Koppal (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.1/2008
**Conviction:** 5 August 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Koppal, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue, Koppal district
**Sentence:** SI 6 months + fine 1,500 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 3,000 (13(1)(d), 13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Koppal convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue, Koppal district, on 5 August 2011 (Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.1/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 6 months + fine 1,500 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 3,000 (13(1)(d), 13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also contains acquittal wording near another mention of the name; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-031)

## Crime No.2/2004; Spl.C.No.1/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-032)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-032
**Title:** Crime No.2/2004; Spl.C.No.1/2005
**Court:** Special Judge, Haveri (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.2/2004; Spl.C.No.1/2005
**Conviction:** 12 August 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Haveri, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) punishable under 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Revenue, Haveri district
**Sentence:** SI 1 month + fine 1,000 (Sec.7); SI 1 year + fine 2,000 (13(1)(d)/13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Haveri convicted a First Division Assistant, Revenue, Haveri district, on 12 August 2011 (Crime No.2/2004; Spl.C.No.1/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) punishable under 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 1 month + fine 1,000 (Sec.7); SI 1 year + fine 2,000 (13(1)(d)/13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-032](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-032)

## Crime No.10/2007; Spl.C.No.72/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-033)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-033
**Title:** Crime No.10/2007; Spl.C.No.72/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.10/2007; Spl.C.No.72/2008
**Conviction:** 27 August 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue, Belgaum district
**Sentence:** RI 6 months + fine 2,500 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 2,500 (13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue, Belgaum district, on 27 August 2011 (Crime No.10/2007; Spl.C.No.72/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 6 months + fine 2,500 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 2,500 (13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-033)

## Crime No.13/2006; Spl.C.No.241/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-034)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-034
**Title:** Crime No.13/2006; Spl.C.No.241/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Tumkur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.13/2006; Spl.C.No.241/2007
**Conviction:** 2 September 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tumkur, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Social Welfare Officer, Tumkur district
**Sentence:** SI 9 months + fine 3,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (13(1)(d), 13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Tumkur convicted a Social Welfare Officer, Tumkur district, on 2 September 2011 (Crime No.13/2006; Spl.C.No.241/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 9 months + fine 3,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (13(1)(d), 13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-034](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-034)

## Crime No.5/2005; Spl.C.No.14/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-035)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-035
**Title:** Crime No.5/2005; Spl.C.No.14/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.5/2005; Spl.C.No.14/2006
**Conviction:** 3 September 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Revenue, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** RI 6 months + fine 1,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 1,000 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)), concurrent

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore City convicted a First Division Assistant, Revenue, Bangalore City district, on 3 September 2011 (Crime No.5/2005; Spl.C.No.14/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 6 months + fine 1,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 1,000 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)), concurrent. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-035)

## Crime No.4/2006; Spl.C.No.2/2010 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-036)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-036
**Title:** Crime No.4/2006; Spl.C.No.2/2010
**Court:** Special Judge, Tumkur (as printed) (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.4/2006; Spl.C.No.2/2010
**Conviction:** 7 September 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Yadgir, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Education, Yadgir district
**Sentence:** RI 5 months + fine 25,000 (Sec.7); RI 5 years + fine 25,000 (13(1)(d), 13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Tumkur (as printed) convicted a First Division Assistant, Education, Yadgir district, on 7 September 2011 (Crime No.4/2006; Spl.C.No.2/2010). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 5 months + fine 25,000 (Sec.7); RI 5 years + fine 25,000 (13(1)(d), 13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-036)

## Crime No.3/2006; Spl.C.No.78/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-037)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-037
**Title:** Crime No.3/2006; Spl.C.No.78/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Hospet (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.3/2006; Spl.C.No.78/2006
**Conviction:** 16 September 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bellary, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Extension Officer, Social Welfare, Bellary district
**Sentence:** SI 2 years + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 3 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d), 13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Hospet convicted an Extension Officer, Social Welfare, Bellary district, on 16 September 2011 (Crime No.3/2006; Spl.C.No.78/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 2 years + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 3 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d), 13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-037)

## Crime No.15/2007; Spl.C.No.63/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-038)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-038
**Title:** Crime No.15/2007; Spl.C.No.63/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.15/2007; Spl.C.No.63/2009
**Conviction:** 17 September 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue, Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 20,000 (default RI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue, Mysore district, on 17 September 2011 (Crime No.15/2007; Spl.C.No.63/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 20,000 (default RI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-038](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-038)

## Crime No.13/2008; Spl.C.No.178/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-039)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-039
**Title:** Crime No.13/2008; Spl.C.No.178/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.13/2008; Spl.C.No.178/2009
**Conviction:** 28 September 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj (Engineering), Belgaum district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year 6 months + fine 20,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years 6 months + fine 25,000 (13(1)(d), 13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted an Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj (Engineering), Belgaum district, on 28 September 2011 (Crime No.13/2008; Spl.C.No.178/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year 6 months + fine 20,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years 6 months + fine 25,000 (13(1)(d), 13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-039)

## Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.50/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-040)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-040
**Title:** Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.50/2008
**Court:** District and Sessions Judge, Udupi (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.50/2008
**Conviction:** 29 September 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Udupi, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Chief Officer, Panchayat Raj (Municipal), Udupi district
**Sentence:** SI 6 months + fine 400 (Sec.7); SI 1 year + fine 400 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.400 + Rs.400

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the District and Sessions Judge, Udupi convicted a Chief Officer, Panchayat Raj (Municipal), Udupi district, on 29 September 2011 (Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.50/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 6 months + fine 400 (Sec.7); SI 1 year + fine 400 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.400 + Rs.400. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-040](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-040)

## Crime No.7/1993; Spl.C.No.95/1995 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-043)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-043
**Title:** Crime No.7/1993; Spl.C.No.95/1995
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.7/1993; Spl.C.No.95/1995
**Conviction:** 4 October 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Commercial Tax Inspector, Commercial Taxes, Mysore district
**Sentence:** SI 6 months + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 15,000 (13(1)(d), 13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore convicted a Commercial Tax Inspector, Commercial Taxes, Mysore district, on 4 October 2011 (Crime No.7/1993; Spl.C.No.95/1995). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 6 months + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 15,000 (13(1)(d), 13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-043](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-043)

## Crime No.3/2008; Spl.C.No.57/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-044)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-044
**Title:** Crime No.3/2008; Spl.C.No.57/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.3/2008; Spl.C.No.57/2009
**Conviction:** 13 October 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 15,000 (default RI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Revenue Inspector, Mysore district, on 13 October 2011 (Crime No.3/2008; Spl.C.No.57/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 15,000 (default RI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-044](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-044)

## Crime No.18/2006; Spl.C.No.4/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-045)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-045
**Title:** Crime No.18/2006; Spl.C.No.4/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.18/2006; Spl.C.No.4/2009
**Conviction:** 17 October 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Joint Director, Employment & Training, Mysore district
**Sentence:** SI 1 year + fine 40,000 (default SI 6 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Joint Director, Employment & Training, Mysore district, on 17 October 2011 (Crime No.18/2006; Spl.C.No.4/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 1 year + fine 40,000 (default SI 6 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-045](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-045)

## Crime No.2/2008; Spl.C.No.1/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-046)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-046
**Title:** Crime No.2/2008; Spl.C.No.1/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore (as printed) (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.2/2008; Spl.C.No.1/2009
**Conviction:** 29 October 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bidar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Division Surveyor, Revenue (Survey), Bidar district
**Sentence:** SI 1 year + fine 3,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 3,000 (13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore (as printed) convicted a Second Division Surveyor, Revenue (Survey), Bidar district, on 29 October 2011 (Crime No.2/2008; Spl.C.No.1/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 1 year + fine 3,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 3,000 (13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-046](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-046)

## Crime No.2/2004; Spl.C.No.13/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-047)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-047
**Title:** Crime No.2/2004; Spl.C.No.13/2005
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore (as printed) (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.2/2004; Spl.C.No.13/2005
**Conviction:** 29 October 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue, Belgaum district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 5,000 (13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore (as printed) convicted a Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue, Belgaum district, on 29 October 2011 (Crime No.2/2004; Spl.C.No.13/2005). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 5,000 (13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the source entry also contains acquittal wording near another mention of the name; who it covers is not stated.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-047](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-047)

## Crime No.6/2005; Spl.C.No.20/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-048)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-048
**Title:** Crime No.6/2005; Spl.C.No.20/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.6/2005; Spl.C.No.20/2007
**Conviction:** 9 November 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Mysore district
**Sentence:** SI 3 years + fine 25,000 (default SI 3 years)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Mysore district, on 9 November 2011 (Crime No.6/2005; Spl.C.No.20/2007). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Sec.7, 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 3 years + fine 25,000 (default SI 3 years). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-048](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-048)

## Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.70/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-049)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-049
**Title:** Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.70/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.70/2009
**Conviction:** 23 November 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Chief Superintendent, Prisons, Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 35,000 (default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Chief Superintendent, Prisons, Mysore district, on 23 November 2011 (Crime No.4/2007; Spl.C.No.70/2009). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Sec.7, 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 35,000 (default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-049](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-049)

## Crime No.8/2006; Spl.C.No.197/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-050)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-050
**Title:** Crime No.8/2006; Spl.C.No.197/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Gulbarga (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.8/2006; Spl.C.No.197/2008
**Conviction:** 24 November 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Gulbarga, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Case Worker (Bill Collector), Municipal, Gulbarga district
**Sentence:** SI 6 months + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); SI 1 year + fine 5,000 (13(1)(d) and 13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Gulbarga convicted a Case Worker (Bill Collector), Municipal, Gulbarga district, on 24 November 2011 (Crime No.8/2006; Spl.C.No.197/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 6 months + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); SI 1 year + fine 5,000 (13(1)(d) and 13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-050](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-050)

## Crime No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.70/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-051)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-051
**Title:** Crime No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.70/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.70/2007
**Conviction:** 2 December 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Taxes, Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 15,000 (default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Taxes, Mysore district, on 2 December 2011 (Crime No.1/2006; Spl.C.No.70/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 15,000 (default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: a co-accused is recorded as acquitted in the same source entry.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-051](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-051)

## Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.56/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-052)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-052
**Title:** Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.56/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Hassan (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.56/2008
**Conviction:** 2 December 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Hassan, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** D Group Employee, Women & Child Development, Hassan district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 3,000 (default SI 2 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Hassan convicted a D Group Employee, Women & Child Development, Hassan district, on 2 December 2011 (Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.56/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 3,000 (default SI 2 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-052](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-052)

## Crime No.8/2005; Spl.C.No.72/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-055)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-055
**Title:** Crime No.8/2005; Spl.C.No.72/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Tumkur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.8/2005; Spl.C.No.72/2006
**Conviction:** 20 December 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tumkur, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Taluk Social Welfare Officer, Tumkur district
**Sentence:** SI 3 years + fine 10,000 (default RI 4 years)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Tumkur convicted a Taluk Social Welfare Officer, Tumkur district, on 20 December 2011 (Crime No.8/2005; Spl.C.No.72/2006). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Sec.7, 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 3 years + fine 10,000 (default RI 4 years). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-055](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-055)

## Crime No.2/2008; Spl.C.No.9/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-056)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-056
**Title:** Crime No.2/2008; Spl.C.No.9/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Bellary (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.2/2008; Spl.C.No.9/2009
**Conviction:** 19 December 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bellary, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d)(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Division Assistant, Revenue, Bellary district
**Sentence:** SI 2 years + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 5,000 (13(1)(d)(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bellary convicted a Second Division Assistant, Revenue, Bellary district, on 19 December 2011 (Crime No.2/2008; Spl.C.No.9/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d)(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 2 years + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 5,000 (13(1)(d)(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-056](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-056)

## Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.8/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-058)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-058
**Title:** Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.8/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Davanagere (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.8/2007
**Conviction:** 23 December 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Davanagere, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d)(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Extension Officer, Social Welfare, Davanagere district
**Sentence:** SI 6 years + fine 2,000 (Sec.7); SI 2 years + fine 3,000 (13(1)(d)(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Davanagere convicted an Extension Officer, Social Welfare, Davanagere district, on 23 December 2011 (Crime No.1/2007; Spl.C.No.8/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d)(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 6 years + fine 2,000 (Sec.7); SI 2 years + fine 3,000 (13(1)(d)(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-058](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-058)

## Crime No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.3/2007 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-059)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-059
**Title:** Crime No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.3/2007
**Court:** Special Judge, Chikkaballapur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.3/2007
**Conviction:** 31 December 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chikkaballapur, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d)(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Chikkaballapur district
**Sentence:** SI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); SI 2 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d)(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Chikkaballapur convicted a Revenue Inspector, Chikkaballapur district, on 31 December 2011 (Crime No.12/2006; Spl.C.No.3/2007). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d)(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); SI 2 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d)(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-059](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-059)

## Crime No.11/2005; Spl.C.No.106/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-060)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-060
**Title:** Crime No.11/2005; Spl.C.No.106/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.11/2005; Spl.C.No.106/2006
**Conviction:** 4 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant, Secretariat, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** RI 9 months + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 7,500 (13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore City convicted an Assistant, Secretariat, Bangalore City district, on 4 January 2012 (Crime No.11/2005; Spl.C.No.106/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 9 months + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 7,500 (13(1)(d)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-060](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-060)

## Crime No.19/2005; Spl.C.No.148/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-061)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-061
**Title:** Crime No.19/2005; Spl.C.No.148/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Bangalore City (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.19/2005; Spl.C.No.148/2006
**Conviction:** 7 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bangalore City, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Section Officer, Secretariat, Bangalore City district
**Sentence:** RI 9 months + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 7,500 (13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bangalore City convicted a Section Officer, Secretariat, Bangalore City district, on 7 January 2012 (Crime No.19/2005; Spl.C.No.148/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 9 months + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 7,500 (13(1)(d)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-061](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-061)

## Crime No.4/2004; Spl.C.No.25/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-062)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-062
**Title:** Crime No.4/2004; Spl.C.No.25/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Tumkur (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.4/2004; Spl.C.No.25/2006
**Conviction:** 12 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tumkur, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Tumkur district
**Sentence:** RI 6 months + fine 1,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 2,000 (13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Tumkur convicted a Revenue Inspector, Tumkur district, on 12 January 2012 (Crime No.4/2004; Spl.C.No.25/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 6 months + fine 1,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 2,000 (13(1)(d)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-062](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-062)

## Crime No.4/2002; Spl.C.No.1/2004 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-064)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-064
**Title:** Crime No.4/2002; Spl.C.No.1/2004
**Court:** Special Judge, Gadag (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.4/2002; Spl.C.No.1/2004
**Conviction:** 20 January 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Gadag, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Engineer, Public Works, Gadag district
**Sentence:** SI 2 years + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d) and 13(2)), concurrent

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Gadag convicted a Junior Engineer, Public Works, Gadag district, on 20 January 2012 (Crime No.4/2002; Spl.C.No.1/2004). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 2 years + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d) and 13(2)), concurrent. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: a co-accused is recorded as acquitted in the same source entry.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-064](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-064)

## Crime No.6/2008; Spl.C.No.43/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-065)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-065
**Title:** Crime No.6/2008; Spl.C.No.43/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.6/2008; Spl.C.No.43/2009
**Conviction:** 4 February 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Belgaum district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 10,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 15,000 (13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted an Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Belgaum district, on 4 February 2012 (Crime No.6/2008; Spl.C.No.43/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 10,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 15,000 (13(1)(d)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-065](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-065)

## Crime No.1/2009; Spl.C.No.1/2010 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-066)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-066
**Title:** Crime No.1/2009; Spl.C.No.1/2010
**Court:** Special Judge, Bidar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2009; Spl.C.No.1/2010
**Conviction:** 9 February 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bidar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Insurance (KGID), Bidar district
**Sentence:** RI 6 months + fine 10,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d) and 13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bidar convicted a First Division Assistant, Insurance (KGID), Bidar district, on 9 February 2012 (Crime No.1/2009; Spl.C.No.1/2010). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 6 months + fine 10,000 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d) and 13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: a co-accused is recorded as acquitted in the same source entry.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-066](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-066)

## Crime No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.2/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-069)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-069
**Title:** Crime No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.2/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Chitradurga (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.2/2009
**Conviction:** 28 February 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chitradurga, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Director of Pre-University Instruction, Education, Chitradurga district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 3 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d) and 13(2)), concurrent

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Chitradurga convicted a Deputy Director of Pre-University Instruction, Education, Chitradurga district, on 28 February 2012 (Crime No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.2/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 3 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d) and 13(2)), concurrent. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-069](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-069)

## Crime No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.2/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-070)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-070
**Title:** Crime No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.2/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Chitradurga (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.2/2009
**Conviction:** 28 February 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chitradurga, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** First Division Assistant, Education, Chitradurga district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 3 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d) and 13(2)), concurrent

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Chitradurga convicted a First Division Assistant, Education, Chitradurga district, on 28 February 2012 (Crime No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.2/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 3 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d) and 13(2)), concurrent. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-070](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-070)

## Crime No.13/2008; Spl.C.No.104/2010 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-071)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-071
**Title:** Crime No.13/2008; Spl.C.No.104/2010
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.13/2008; Spl.C.No.104/2010
**Conviction:** 2 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Division Assistant, Treasury, Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 15,000 (default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Second Division Assistant, Treasury, Mysore district, on 2 March 2012 (Crime No.13/2008; Spl.C.No.104/2010). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 15,000 (default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-071](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-071)

## Crime No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.29/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-072)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-072
**Title:** Crime No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.29/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.29/2009
**Conviction:** 7 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue, Belgaum district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue, Belgaum district, on 7 March 2012 (Crime No.1/2008; Spl.C.No.29/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-072](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-072)

## Crime No.11/2008; Spl.C.No.81/2010 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-073)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-073
**Title:** Crime No.11/2008; Spl.C.No.81/2010
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.11/2008; Spl.C.No.81/2010
**Conviction:** 13 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Director of Sericulture, Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 15,000 (default SI 3 months)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted an Assistant Director of Sericulture, Mysore district, on 13 March 2012 (Crime No.11/2008; Spl.C.No.81/2010). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 15,000 (default SI 3 months). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-073](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-073)

## Crime No.18/2008; Spl.C.No.39/2010 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-074)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-074
**Title:** Crime No.18/2008; Spl.C.No.39/2010
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.18/2008; Spl.C.No.39/2010
**Conviction:** 14 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue, Belgaum district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue, Belgaum district, on 14 March 2012 (Crime No.18/2008; Spl.C.No.39/2010). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-074](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-074)

## Crime No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.2/2006 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-075)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-075
**Title:** Crime No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.2/2006
**Court:** Special Judge, Haveri (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.2/2006
**Conviction:** 14 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Haveri, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue, Haveri district
**Sentence:** SI 1 year + fine 1,000 (Sec.7); SI 2 years + fine 2,000 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Haveri convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue, Haveri district, on 14 March 2012 (Crime No.2/2006; Spl.C.No.2/2006). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 1 year + fine 1,000 (Sec.7); SI 2 years + fine 2,000 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-075](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-075)

## Crime No.8/2008; Spl.C.No.3/2010 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-076)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-076
**Title:** Crime No.8/2008; Spl.C.No.3/2010
**Court:** Special Judge, Bidar (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.8/2008; Spl.C.No.3/2010
**Conviction:** 16 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bidar, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue, Bidar district
**Sentence:** SI 1 year + fine 3,000 (Sec.7); SI 18 months + fine 3,000 (13(1)(d) and 13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bidar convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue, Bidar district, on 16 March 2012 (Crime No.8/2008; Spl.C.No.3/2010). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) and 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 1 year + fine 3,000 (Sec.7); SI 18 months + fine 3,000 (13(1)(d) and 13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-076](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-076)

## Crime No.8/2009; Spl.C.No.98/2010 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-077)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-077
**Title:** Crime No.8/2009; Spl.C.No.98/2010
**Court:** Special Judge, Koppal (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.8/2009; Spl.C.No.98/2010
**Conviction:** 18 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Koppal, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Division Assistant, Public Works, Koppal district
**Sentence:** SI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); SI 2 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Koppal convicted a Second Division Assistant, Public Works, Koppal district, on 18 March 2012 (Crime No.8/2009; Spl.C.No.98/2010). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); SI 2 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-077](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-077)

## Crime No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.58/2008 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-078)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-078
**Title:** Crime No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.58/2008
**Court:** Special Judge, Bellary (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.58/2008
**Conviction:** 26 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Bellary, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Bellary district
**Sentence:** RI 3 years + fine 10,000 (Sec.7); as stated for 13(1)(d), 13(2)

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Bellary convicted a Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Bellary district, on 26 March 2012 (Crime No.2/2007; Spl.C.No.58/2008). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 3 years + fine 10,000 (Sec.7); as stated for 13(1)(d), 13(2). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-078](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-078)

## Crime No.20/2007; Spl.C.No.30/2009 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-079)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-079
**Title:** Crime No.20/2007; Spl.C.No.30/2009
**Court:** Special Judge, Belgaum (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.20/2007; Spl.C.No.30/2009
**Conviction:** 27 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Belgaum, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Accountant, Revenue, Belgaum district
**Sentence:** RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d))

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Belgaum convicted a Village Accountant, Revenue, Belgaum district, on 27 March 2012 (Crime No.20/2007; Spl.C.No.30/2009). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 1 year + fine 5,000 (Sec.7); RI 2 years + fine 10,000 (13(1)(d)). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-079](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-079)

## Crime No.1/2009; Spl.C.No.26/2010 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-080)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-080
**Title:** Crime No.1/2009; Spl.C.No.26/2010
**Court:** Special Judge, Udupi (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2009; Spl.C.No.26/2010
**Conviction:** 31 March 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Udupi, Karnataka
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Second Division Surveyor, Revenue (Survey), Udupi district
**Sentence:** SI 6 months + fine 500 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 2,000 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.500 + Rs.2,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Udupi convicted a Second Division Surveyor, Revenue (Survey), Udupi district, on 31 March 2012 (Crime No.1/2009; Spl.C.No.26/2010). The conviction was for bribery, under Sec.7 PC Act; Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: SI 6 months + fine 500 (Sec.7); RI 1 year + fine 2,000 (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)); fine: Rs.500 + Rs.2,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-080](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-080)

## Crime No.1/2003; Spl.C.No.29/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-081)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-081
**Title:** Crime No.1/2003; Spl.C.No.29/2005
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/2003; Spl.C.No.29/2005
**Conviction:** 3 September 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) PC Act; Secs.468,471,420 IPC
**Official (gated display forms):** 4th Class Electrician, Public Works, Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 3 years (default RI 1 year); fine: Rs.40,00,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a 4th Class Electrician, Public Works, Mysore district, on 3 September 2011 (Crime No.1/2003; Spl.C.No.29/2005). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Sec.7, 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) PC Act; Secs.468,471,420 IPC. The sentence recorded is: RI 3 years (default RI 1 year); fine: Rs.40,00,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-081](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-081)

## Crime No.11/1999; Spl.C.No.25/2005 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-082)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-082
**Title:** Crime No.11/1999; Spl.C.No.25/2005
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.11/1999; Spl.C.No.25/2005
**Conviction:** 3 November 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Engineer, Panchayat Raj (Engineering), Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 2 years (default RI 1 year); fine: Rs.12,00,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted a Junior Engineer, Panchayat Raj (Engineering), Mysore district, on 3 November 2011 (Crime No.11/1999; Spl.C.No.25/2005). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Sec.7, 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 2 years (default RI 1 year); fine: Rs.12,00,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-082](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-082)

## Crime No.12/1995; Spl.C.No.55/1999 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-083)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-083
**Title:** Crime No.12/1995; Spl.C.No.55/1999
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.12/1995; Spl.C.No.55/1999
**Conviction:** 5 December 2011
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.7, 13(1)(e)(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj (Engineering), Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 5 years (default RI 1 year); fine: Rs.32,02,251

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted an Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj (Engineering), Mysore district, on 5 December 2011 (Crime No.12/1995; Spl.C.No.55/1999). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Sec.7, 13(1)(e)(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 5 years (default RI 1 year); fine: Rs.32,02,251. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-083](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-083)

## Crime No.1/1994; Spl.C.No.45/2000 (bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-084)

**Record:** bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-084
**Title:** Crime No.1/1994; Spl.C.No.45/2000
**Court:** Special Judge, Mysore (Lokayukta Court)
**Case reference:** Crime No.1/1994; Spl.C.No.45/2000
**Conviction:** 29 February 2012
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Mysore, Karnataka
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Sec.13(1)(e) and 13(2) PC Act
**Official (gated display forms):** Executive Engineer, Municipal, Mysore district
**Sentence:** RI 2 years (default SI 1 year); fine: Rs.13,50,000

The Karnataka Lokayukta's annual report for 2011-12 records that the Special Judge, Mysore convicted an Executive Engineer, Municipal, Mysore district, on 29 February 2012 (Crime No.1/1994; Spl.C.No.45/2000). The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income, under Sec.13(1)(e) and 13(2) PC Act. The sentence recorded is: RI 2 years (default SI 1 year); fine: Rs.13,50,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in](https://lokayukta.karnataka.gov.in/pdf/AAR2011-12.pdf)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-084](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-karnataka-lokayukta-07-084)

## Trichy Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Trichy District convicted of bribery, SJ Court, Trichy (2026) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-001)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-001
**Title:** Trichy Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Trichy District convicted of bribery, SJ Court, Trichy (2026)
**Court:** SJ Court, Trichy (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Trichy Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Trichy District convicted of bribery, SJ Court, Trichy (2026)
**Conviction:** 28 August 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Trichy, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Trichy District
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the SJ Court, Trichy convicted an Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Trichy District on 28 August 2026. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-001)

## Trichy Superintendent, Adi Dravidar Welfare Office, Trichy District convicted of bribery, SJ Court, Trichy (2026) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-002)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-002
**Title:** Trichy Superintendent, Adi Dravidar Welfare Office, Trichy District convicted of bribery, SJ Court, Trichy (2026)
**Court:** SJ Court, Trichy (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Trichy Superintendent, Adi Dravidar Welfare Office, Trichy District convicted of bribery, SJ Court, Trichy (2026)
**Conviction:** 28 August 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Trichy, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Superintendent, Adi Dravidar Welfare Office, Trichy District
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the SJ Court, Trichy convicted a Superintendent, Adi Dravidar Welfare Office, Trichy District on 28 August 2026. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-002)

## Tirunelveli Village Administrative Officer, Sivanthipuram Part – II Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District convicted of bribery, SJ Court, Tirunelveli (2026) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-003)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-003
**Title:** Tirunelveli Village Administrative Officer, Sivanthipuram Part – II Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District convicted of bribery, SJ Court, Tirunelveli (2026)
**Court:** SJ Court, Tirunelveli (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tirunelveli Village Administrative Officer, Sivanthipuram Part – II Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District convicted of bribery, SJ Court, Tirunelveli (2026)
**Conviction:** 28 August 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Administrative Officer, Sivanthipuram Part – II Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in a Trap case

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the SJ Court, Tirunelveli convicted a Village Administrative Officer, Sivanthipuram Part – II Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District on 28 August 2026. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in a Trap case. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-003](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-003)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant Executive Engineer convicted of bribery, CJM Court, Tirunelveli (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-006)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-006
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Executive Engineer convicted of bribery, CJM Court, Tirunelveli (2025)
**Court:** CJM Court, Tirunelveli (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Executive Engineer convicted of bribery, CJM Court, Tirunelveli (2025)
**Conviction:** 29 October 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the CJM Court, Tirunelveli convicted an Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and, on 29 October 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the employing office is not stated in the source entry; the source entry also mentions a public-sector company.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-006](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-006)

## Madurai Temporary Staff in the O/o the Special Deputy Collector, Stamps, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-008)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-008
**Title:** Madurai Temporary Staff in the O/o the Special Deputy Collector, Stamps, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2025)
**Court:** Special Court, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Madurai Temporary Staff in the O/o the Special Deputy Collector, Stamps, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2025)
**Conviction:** 25 September 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Temporary Staff in the O/o the Special Deputy Collector, Stamps, Madurai District
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment, and fine amount of Rs.4,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Madurai convicted a Temporary Staff in the O/o the Special Deputy Collector, Stamps, Madurai District on 25 September 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years rigorous imprisonment, and fine amount of Rs.4,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-008](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-008)

## Trichy Assistant Director cum Personal Assistant, Collector Office, Trichy District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Trichy (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-009)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-009
**Title:** Trichy Assistant Director cum Personal Assistant, Collector Office, Trichy District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Trichy (2025)
**Court:** Special Court, Trichy (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Trichy Assistant Director cum Personal Assistant, Collector Office, Trichy District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Trichy (2025)
**Conviction:** 18 September 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Trichy, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Director cum Personal Assistant (Small Savings), Collector Office, Trichy District
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment, and fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Trichy convicted an Assistant Director cum Personal Assistant (Small Savings), Collector Office, Trichy District on 18 September 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment, and fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-009](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-009)

## Tamil Nadu Depot Manager, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-011)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-011
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Depot Manager, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2025)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Depot Manager, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2025)
**Conviction:** 18 June 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Depot Manager, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment, and fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted a Depot Manager, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board on 18 June 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 5 years rigorous imprisonment, and fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-011](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-011)

## Tamil Nadu Accountant, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai convicted of misconduct, Special Court, Chennai (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-012)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-012
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Accountant, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai convicted of misconduct, Special Court, Chennai (2025)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Accountant, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai convicted of misconduct, Special Court, Chennai (2025)
**Conviction:** 11 June 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Accountant, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai, former Accountant, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment, and each fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted an Accountant, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai, former Accountant, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai, on 11 June 2025. The sentence recorded is: 5 years rigorous imprisonment, and each fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-012](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-012)

## Tamil Nadu Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai convicted of misconduct, Special Court, Chennai (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-013)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-013
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai convicted of misconduct, Special Court, Chennai (2025)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai convicted of misconduct, Special Court, Chennai (2025)
**Conviction:** 11 June 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai, former Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment, and each fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted a Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai, former Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai, on 11 June 2025. The sentence recorded is: 5 years rigorous imprisonment, and each fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-013](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-013)

## Tamil Nadu Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai convicted of misconduct, Special Court, Chennai (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-014)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-014
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai convicted of misconduct, Special Court, Chennai (2025)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai convicted of misconduct, Special Court, Chennai (2025)
**Conviction:** 11 June 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai, former Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment, and each fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted a Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai, former Cash Checking Officer, Government Museum, Egmore, Chennai, on 11 June 2025. The sentence recorded is: 5 years rigorous imprisonment, and each fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-014](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-014)

## Dindigul Village Administrative Officer, Senthurai Village, Nattham Taluk, Dindigul District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-015)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-015
**Title:** Dindigul Village Administrative Officer, Senthurai Village, Nattham Taluk, Dindigul District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul (2025)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Dindigul Village Administrative Officer, Senthurai Village, Nattham Taluk, Dindigul District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul (2025)
**Conviction:** 26 May 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Administrative Officer, Senthurai Village, Nattham Taluk, Dindigul District
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul convicted a Village Administrative Officer, Senthurai Village, Nattham Taluk, Dindigul District on 26 May 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-015](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-015)

## Thiruppur Social Welfare Officer, Thiruppur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppur (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-016)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-016
**Title:** Thiruppur Social Welfare Officer, Thiruppur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppur (2025)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppur (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Thiruppur Social Welfare Officer, Thiruppur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppur (2025)
**Conviction:** 22 May 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thiruppur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Social Welfare Officer, Thiruppur District
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.4,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppur convicted a Social Welfare Officer, Thiruppur District on 22 May 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.4,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-016](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-016)

## Pudukottai Assistant Engineer, PWD Department, Pudukottai District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-017)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-017
**Title:** Pudukottai Assistant Engineer, PWD Department, Pudukottai District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai (2025)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Pudukottai Assistant Engineer, PWD Department, Pudukottai District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai (2025)
**Conviction:** 16 May 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pudukottai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Engineer, PWD Department, Pudukottai District
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai convicted an Assistant Engineer, PWD Department, Pudukottai District on 16 May 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-017](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-017)

## Pudukottai Village Administrative Officer, Kovilur, Alankudi Taluk, Pudukottai District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-018)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-018
**Title:** Pudukottai Village Administrative Officer, Kovilur, Alankudi Taluk, Pudukottai District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai (2025)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Pudukottai Village Administrative Officer, Kovilur, Alankudi Taluk, Pudukottai District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai (2025)
**Conviction:** 14 May 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pudukottai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Administrative Officer, Kovilur, Alankudi Taluk, Pudukottai District
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.8,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai convicted a Village Administrative Officer, Kovilur, Alankudi Taluk, Pudukottai District on 14 May 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.8,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-018](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-018)

## Tamil Nadu License Inspector, Zone-IV, Corporation of Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-019)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-019
**Title:** Tamil Nadu License Inspector, Zone-IV, Corporation of Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2025)
**Court:** Special Judge, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu License Inspector, Zone-IV, Corporation of Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2025)
**Conviction:** 13 May 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** License Inspector, Zone-IV, Corporation of Chennai
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Chennai convicted a License Inspector, Zone-IV, Corporation of Chennai on 13 May 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 5 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-019](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-019)

## Tamil Nadu Sub-Registarar, Pudhukottai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-021)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-021
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Sub-Registarar, Pudhukottai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai (2025)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Sub-Registarar, Pudhukottai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai (2025)
**Conviction:** 5 May 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Sub-Registarar, Pudhukottai
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment & fine amount of Rs.8000/- (sentences of co-accused omitted)

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudhukottai convicted a Sub-Registarar, Pudhukottai on 5 May 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment & fine amount of Rs.8000/- (sentences of co-accused omitted). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-021)

## Madurai Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-022)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-022
**Title:** Madurai Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2025)
**Court:** Special Court, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Madurai Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2025)
**Conviction:** 29 April 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.4,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Madurai convicted a Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District on 29 April 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.4,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-022](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-022)

## Chennai Executive Engineer, Madipakkam, Chennai District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-023)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-023
**Title:** Chennai Executive Engineer, Madipakkam, Chennai District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Chennai Executive Engineer, Madipakkam, Chennai District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet (2025)
**Conviction:** 25 April 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chennai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Executive Engineer, Madipakkam, Chennai District
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet convicted an Executive Engineer, Madipakkam, Chennai District on 25 April 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the employing office is not stated in the source entry.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-023)

## Karur Sanitary Inspector, Thanthondria Mazhai, Karur District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Karur (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-025)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-025
**Title:** Karur Sanitary Inspector, Thanthondria Mazhai, Karur District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Karur (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Karur (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Karur Sanitary Inspector, Thanthondria Mazhai, Karur District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Karur (2025)
**Conviction:** 17 April 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Sanitary Inspector, Thanthondria Mazhai, Karur District
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Karur convicted a Sanitary Inspector, Thanthondria Mazhai, Karur District on 17 April 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-025](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-025)

## Tiruvarur Municipal Building Inspector, Tiruvarur District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-026)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-026
**Title:** Tiruvarur Municipal Building Inspector, Tiruvarur District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Tiruvarur Municipal Building Inspector, Tiruvarur District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur (2025)
**Conviction:** 15 April 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tiruvarur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Municipal Building Inspector, Tiruvarur District
**Sentence:** 7 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.11,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur convicted a Municipal Building Inspector, Tiruvarur District on 15 April 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 7 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.11,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-026](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-026)

## Kanyakumari Sub-Registrar, Idalakkudi, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-030)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-030
**Title:** Kanyakumari Sub-Registrar, Idalakkudi, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Kanyakumari Sub-Registrar, Idalakkudi, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate (2025)
**Conviction:** 25 March 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Sub-Registrar, Idalakkudi, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate convicted a Sub-Registrar, Idalakkudi, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District on 25 March 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-030](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-030)

## Thiruvarur Village Assistant, Thiruvarur Taluk, Thiruvarur District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-031)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-031
**Title:** Thiruvarur Village Assistant, Thiruvarur Taluk, Thiruvarur District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Thiruvarur Village Assistant, Thiruvarur Taluk, Thiruvarur District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur (2025)
**Conviction:** 24 March 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Assistant, Thiruvarur Taluk, Thiruvarur District
**Sentence:** 4 years simple imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur convicted a Village Assistant, Thiruvarur Taluk, Thiruvarur District on 24 March 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years simple imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-031](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-031)

## Cuddalore Special Tahsildar, Temple Lands, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Cuddalore (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-033)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-033
**Title:** Cuddalore Special Tahsildar, Temple Lands, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Cuddalore (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Cuddalore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Cuddalore Special Tahsildar, Temple Lands, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Cuddalore (2025)
**Conviction:** 19 March 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Special Tahsildar, Temple Lands, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (sentences of co-accused omitted)

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Cuddalore convicted a Special Tahsildar, Temple Lands, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District on 19 March 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (sentences of co-accused omitted). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-033](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-033)

## Pudukkottai Work Inspector, Public Works Department, Pudukkottai District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Pudukkottai (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-035)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-035
**Title:** Pudukkottai Work Inspector, Public Works Department, Pudukkottai District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Pudukkottai (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Pudukkottai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Pudukkottai Work Inspector, Public Works Department, Pudukkottai District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Pudukkottai (2025)
**Conviction:** 14 March 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Work Inspector, Public Works Department, Pudukkottai District
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Pudukkottai convicted a Work Inspector, Public Works Department, Pudukkottai District on 14 March 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-035](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-035)

## Tamil Nadu District Revenue Officer, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court for PC Act cases (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-036)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-036
**Title:** Tamil Nadu District Revenue Officer, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court for PC Act cases (2025)
**Court:** Special Court for PC Act cases (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu District Revenue Officer, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court for PC Act cases (2025)
**Conviction:** 14 March 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** District Revenue Officer, Chennai
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (sentences of co-accused omitted)

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court for PC Act cases convicted a District Revenue Officer, Chennai on 14 March 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 5 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (sentences of co-accused omitted). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-036](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-036)

## Trichy Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District convicted of disproportionate assets, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-037)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-037
**Title:** Trichy Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District convicted of disproportionate assets, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Trichy Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District convicted of disproportionate assets, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram (2025)
**Conviction:** 13 March 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Trichy, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Disproportionate assets
**Sub-category:** disproportionate assets
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District
**Sentence:** 3 years simple imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.40 Lakhs on disproportionate asset case

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram convicted a Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District on 13 March 2025. The conviction was for possessing assets disproportionate to known income. The sentence recorded is: 3 years simple imprisonment, and total fine amount of Rs.40 Lakhs on disproportionate asset case. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-037](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-037)

## Tamil Nadu Sub-Inspector of Survey, Alandur Taluk, Chennai convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpet (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-039)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-039
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Sub-Inspector of Survey, Alandur Taluk, Chennai convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpet (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpet (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Sub-Inspector of Survey, Alandur Taluk, Chennai convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpet (2025)
**Conviction:** 28 February 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Survey, Alandur Taluk, Chennai
**Sentence:** 2 years simple imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpet convicted a Sub-Inspector of Survey, Alandur Taluk, Chennai on 28 February 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years simple imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-039](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-039)

## Thoothukudi Sub Registrar, Melur Sub Registry, Thoothukudi District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-041)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-041
**Title:** Thoothukudi Sub Registrar, Melur Sub Registry, Thoothukudi District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Thoothukudi Sub Registrar, Melur Sub Registry, Thoothukudi District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi (2025)
**Conviction:** 28 February 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Sub Registrar, Melur Sub Registry, Thoothukudi District
**Sentence:** 3 years simple imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi convicted a Sub Registrar, Melur Sub Registry, Thoothukudi District on 28 February 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years simple imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-041](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-041)

## Madurai Forest Range Officer, Sholavandan Range, T.Andipatti Bungalow, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Madurai (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-042)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-042
**Title:** Madurai Forest Range Officer, Sholavandan Range, T.Andipatti Bungalow, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Madurai (2025)
**Court:** Special Judge, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Madurai Forest Range Officer, Sholavandan Range, T.Andipatti Bungalow, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Madurai (2025)
**Conviction:** 24 February 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Forest Range Officer, Sholavandan Range, T.Andipatti Bungalow, Madurai District
**Sentence:** 3 years of rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.6,000/- (sentences of co-accused omitted)

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Madurai convicted a Forest Range Officer, Sholavandan Range, T.Andipatti Bungalow, Madurai District on 24 February 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years of rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.6,000/- (sentences of co-accused omitted). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-042](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-042)

## Thanjavur Village Welfare Officer, Orathanadu Block Development Officer, Thanjavur District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-043)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-043
**Title:** Thanjavur Village Welfare Officer, Orathanadu Block Development Officer, Thanjavur District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Thanjavur Village Welfare Officer, Orathanadu Block Development Officer, Thanjavur District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam (2025)
**Conviction:** 13 February 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Welfare Officer, Orathanadu Block Development Officer, Thanjavur District
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.4,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam convicted a Village Welfare Officer, Orathanadu Block Development Officer, Thanjavur District on 13 February 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.4,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-043](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-043)

## Trichy Village Health Nurse, Shobanapuram Village, Primary Health centre, Uppliyapuram, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Tricy (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-044)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-044
**Title:** Trichy Village Health Nurse, Shobanapuram Village, Primary Health centre, Uppliyapuram, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Tricy (2025)
**Court:** Special Judge, Tricy (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Trichy Village Health Nurse, Shobanapuram Village, Primary Health centre, Uppliyapuram, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Tricy (2025)
**Conviction:** 10 February 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Trichy, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Health Nurse, Shobanapuram Village, Primary Health centre, Uppliyapuram, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.3,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Tricy convicted a Village Health Nurse, Shobanapuram Village, Primary Health centre, Uppliyapuram, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District on 10 February 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.3,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-044](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-044)

## Cuddalore Village Administrative Officer, Chithirai Chavadi Village, Cuddalore District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-045)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-045
**Title:** Cuddalore Village Administrative Officer, Chithirai Chavadi Village, Cuddalore District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Cuddalore Village Administrative Officer, Chithirai Chavadi Village, Cuddalore District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore (2025)
**Conviction:** 7 February 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Administrative Officer, Chithirai Chavadi Village, Cuddalore District
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore convicted a Village Administrative Officer, Chithirai Chavadi Village, Cuddalore District on 7 February 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-045](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-045)

## Kanchipuram Rural Welfare Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Acharapakkam, Kanchipuram District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpet (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-048)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-048
**Title:** Kanchipuram Rural Welfare Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Acharapakkam, Kanchipuram District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpet (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpet (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Kanchipuram Rural Welfare Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Acharapakkam, Kanchipuram District convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpet (2025)
**Conviction:** 30 January 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Rural Welfare Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Acharapakkam, Kanchipuram District
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpet convicted a Rural Welfare Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Acharapakkam, Kanchipuram District on 30 January 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year simple imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-048](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-048)

## Tamil Nadu Revenue Assistant, North TK, Madurai convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Madurai (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-049)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-049
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Revenue Assistant, North TK, Madurai convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Madurai (2025)
**Court:** Special Judge, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Revenue Assistant, North TK, Madurai convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Madurai (2025)
**Conviction:** 28 January 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Assistant, North TK, Madurai
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.4,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Madurai convicted a Revenue Assistant, North TK, Madurai on 28 January 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 5 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.4,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-049](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-049)

## Tamil Nadu Conservancy Inspector, 28 Division, Chennai Corporation, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court for PC Act, Chennai have (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-050)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-050
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Conservancy Inspector, 28 Division, Chennai Corporation, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court for PC Act, Chennai have (2025)
**Court:** Special Court for PC Act, Chennai have (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Conservancy Inspector, 28 Division, Chennai Corporation, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court for PC Act, Chennai have (2025)
**Conviction:** 20 January 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Conservancy Inspector, 28 Division, Chennai Corporation, Chennai
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court for PC Act, Chennai have convicted a Conservancy Inspector, 28 Division, Chennai Corporation, Chennai on 20 January 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 5 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-050](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-050)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant Inspector of Labour convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thoothukudi (2025) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-051)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-051
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Inspector of Labour convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thoothukudi (2025)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thoothukudi (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Inspector of Labour convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thoothukudi (2025)
**Conviction:** 6 January 2025
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Inspector of Labour, formery Assistant Inspector of Labour
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thoothukudi convicted an Assistant Inspector of Labour, formery Assistant Inspector of Labour, on 6 January 2025. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-051](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-051)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chennai (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-052)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-052
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chennai (2024)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chennai (2024)
**Conviction:** 27 December 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Engineer, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chennai convicted an Assistant Engineer, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board on 27 December 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 5 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-052](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-052)

## Kanyakumari Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Dept., Kanyakumari District and her husband convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Nagercoil (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-053)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-053
**Title:** Kanyakumari Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Dept., Kanyakumari District and her husband convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Nagercoil (2024)
**Court:** Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Nagercoil (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Kanyakumari Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Dept., Kanyakumari District and her husband convicted of bribery, Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Nagercoil (2024)
**Conviction:** 6 December 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Dept., Kanyakumari District and her husband
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.50,000/- each

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Cheif Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Nagercoil convicted an Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Dept., Kanyakumari District and her husband on 6 December 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.50,000/- each. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-053](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-053)

## Chengalpet Foreman convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-054)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-054
**Title:** Chengalpet Foreman convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet (2024)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Chengalpet Foreman convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet (2024)
**Conviction:** 25 November 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Chengalpet, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Foreman, Chengalpet district
**Sentence:** 2 years simple imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet convicted a Foreman, Chengalpet district, on 25 November 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years simple imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the employing office is not stated in the source entry; the source entry also mentions a public-sector company.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-054](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-054)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, Division-182, Greater Chennai Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Judge for PC Act Cases, Chennai (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-057)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-057
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, Division-182, Greater Chennai Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Judge for PC Act Cases, Chennai (2024)
**Court:** Special Judge for PC Act Cases, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, Division-182, Greater Chennai Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Judge for PC Act Cases, Chennai (2024)
**Conviction:** 5 November 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Engineer, Division-182, Greater Chennai Corporation
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge for PC Act Cases, Chennai convicted an Assistant Engineer, Division-182, Greater Chennai Corporation on 5 November 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 5 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-057](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-057)

## Tamil Nadu District Registrar, Audit, Chennai, South Registration Department, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Judge for PC Act Cases, Chennai (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-058)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-058
**Title:** Tamil Nadu District Registrar, Audit, Chennai, South Registration Department, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Judge for PC Act Cases, Chennai (2024)
**Court:** Special Judge for PC Act Cases, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu District Registrar, Audit, Chennai, South Registration Department, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Judge for PC Act Cases, Chennai (2024)
**Conviction:** 24 October 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** District Registrar, Audit, Chennai, South Registration Department, Chennai
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge for PC Act Cases, Chennai convicted a District Registrar, Audit, Chennai, South Registration Department, Chennai on 24 October 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-058](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-058)

## Tamil Nadu SRO convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-059)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-059
**Title:** Tamil Nadu SRO convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2024)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu SRO convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2024)
**Conviction:** 12 September 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** SRO
**Sentence:** 4 years of rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur convicted an SRO on 12 September 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years of rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-059](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-059)

## Tamil Nadu Joint SRO, Avadi Sub-Register Ofice convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-060)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-060
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Joint SRO, Avadi Sub-Register Ofice convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2024)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Joint SRO, Avadi Sub-Register Ofice convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2024)
**Conviction:** 12 September 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Joint SRO, Avadi Sub-Register Ofice
**Sentence:** 4 years of rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur convicted a Joint SRO, Avadi Sub-Register Ofice on 12 September 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years of rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-060](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-060)

## Tamil Nadu Junior Assistant cum Typist Additional Charge of Bill Collector in Ward No.20, West Zone, Coimbatore convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Coimbatore (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-062)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-062
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Junior Assistant cum Typist Additional Charge of Bill Collector in Ward No.20, West Zone, Coimbatore convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Coimbatore (2024)
**Court:** Special Judge, Coimbatore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Junior Assistant cum Typist Additional Charge of Bill Collector in Ward No.20, West Zone, Coimbatore convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Coimbatore (2024)
**Conviction:** 30 August 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Assistant cum Typist Additional Charge of Bill Collector in Ward No.20, West Zone, Coimbatore
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Coimbatore convicted a Junior Assistant cum Typist Additional Charge of Bill Collector in Ward No.20, West Zone, Coimbatore on 30 August 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-062](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-062)

## Tirupur Dy.Tahsildar, Avinasi, Tirupur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-063)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-063
**Title:** Tirupur Dy.Tahsildar, Avinasi, Tirupur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur (2024)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Tirupur Dy.Tahsildar, Avinasi, Tirupur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur (2024)
**Conviction:** 12 June 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tirupur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Dy.Tahsildar, Avinasi, Tirupur District
**Sentence:** 3 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.3,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur convicted a Dy.Tahsildar, Avinasi, Tirupur District on 12 June 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.3,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-063](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-063)

## Tamil Nadu Land Record Draughtsman, O/o Tahsildhar Tondiarpet, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-064)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-064
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Land Record Draughtsman, O/o Tahsildhar Tondiarpet, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2024)
**Court:** Special Judge, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Land Record Draughtsman, O/o Tahsildhar Tondiarpet, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2024)
**Conviction:** 28 March 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Land Record Draughtsman (LRD), O/o Tahsildhar Tondiarpet, Chennai
**Sentence:** 3 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.3,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Chennai convicted a Land Record Draughtsman (LRD), O/o Tahsildhar Tondiarpet, Chennai on 28 March 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.3,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-064](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-064)

## Tamil Nadu Village Administrative Officer, Karupalli, Krishnagiri convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Krishnagiri (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-065)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-065
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Village Administrative Officer, Karupalli, Krishnagiri convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Krishnagiri (2024)
**Court:** CJM cum Special Judge, Krishnagiri (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Village Administrative Officer, Karupalli, Krishnagiri convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Krishnagiri (2024)
**Conviction:** 15 March 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Administrative Officer, Karupalli, Krishnagiri
**Sentence:** 5 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.6,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the CJM cum Special Judge, Krishnagiri convicted a Village Administrative Officer, Karupalli, Krishnagiri on 15 March 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 5 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.6,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-065](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-065)

## Tamil Nadu Revenue Assistant, Ambattur Municipality convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-066)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-066
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Revenue Assistant, Ambattur Municipality convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2024)
**Court:** CJM cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Revenue Assistant, Ambattur Municipality convicted of bribery, CJM cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2024)
**Conviction:** 5 March 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Assistant, Ambattur Municipality
**Sentence:** 3 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.40,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the CJM cum Special Judge, Thiruvallur convicted a Revenue Assistant, Ambattur Municipality on 5 March 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.40,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-066](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-066)

## Tamil Nadu Junior Engineer, North Zone, Coimbatore Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Coimbatore (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-067)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-067
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Junior Engineer, North Zone, Coimbatore Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Coimbatore (2024)
**Court:** Special Judge, Coimbatore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Junior Engineer, North Zone, Coimbatore Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Coimbatore (2024)
**Conviction:** 29 February 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Engineer, North Zone, Coimbatore Corporation
**Sentence:** 1 year imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Coimbatore convicted a Junior Engineer, North Zone, Coimbatore Corporation on 29 February 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-067](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-067)

## Namakkal Forester, Sendamangalam, Namakkal District convicted of bribery, Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-072)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-072
**Title:** Namakkal Forester, Sendamangalam, Namakkal District convicted of bribery, Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal (2024)
**Court:** Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Namakkal Forester, Sendamangalam, Namakkal District convicted of bribery, Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal (2024)
**Conviction:** 30 January 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Namakkal, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Forester, Sendamangalam, Namakkal District
**Sentence:** 3 years imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal convicted a Forester, Sendamangalam, Namakkal District on 30 January 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-072](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-072)

## Namakkal Forest Guard, Naducombai, Sendamangalam, Namakkal District convicted of bribery, Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-073)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-073
**Title:** Namakkal Forest Guard, Naducombai, Sendamangalam, Namakkal District convicted of bribery, Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal (2024)
**Court:** Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Namakkal Forest Guard, Naducombai, Sendamangalam, Namakkal District convicted of bribery, Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal (2024)
**Conviction:** 30 January 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Namakkal, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Forest Guard, Naducombai, Sendamangalam, Namakkal District
**Sentence:** 3 years imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal convicted a Forest Guard, Naducombai, Sendamangalam, Namakkal District on 30 January 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-073](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-073)

## Namakkal Firka Surveyor, Pallipalayam firka, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District convicted of bribery, Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-074)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-074
**Title:** Namakkal Firka Surveyor, Pallipalayam firka, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District convicted of bribery, Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal (2024)
**Court:** Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Namakkal Firka Surveyor, Pallipalayam firka, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District convicted of bribery, Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal (2024)
**Conviction:** 24 January 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Namakkal, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Firka Surveyor, Pallipalayam firka, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District
**Sentence:** 3 years imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal convicted a Firka Surveyor, Pallipalayam firka, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District on 24 January 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-074](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-074)

## Tamil Nadu foreman, Kothagiri West Brook Nigiris convicted of bribery, Assistant Sessions, Udhagamandalam (2024) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-075)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-075
**Title:** Tamil Nadu foreman, Kothagiri West Brook Nigiris convicted of bribery, Assistant Sessions, Udhagamandalam (2024)
**Court:** Assistant Sessions, Udhagamandalam (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu foreman, Kothagiri West Brook Nigiris convicted of bribery, Assistant Sessions, Udhagamandalam (2024)
**Conviction:** 9 January 2024
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** foreman, Kothagiri West Brook Nigiris
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.4,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Assistant Sessions, Udhagamandalam convicted a foreman, Kothagiri West Brook Nigiris on 9 January 2024. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.4,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the employing office is not stated in the source entry.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-075](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-075)

## Tamil Nadu Field Assistant, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chengalpet (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-076)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-076
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Field Assistant, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chengalpet (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Chengalpet (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Field Assistant, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chengalpet (2023)
**Conviction:** 12 December 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Field Assistant, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chengalpet convicted a Field Assistant, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation on 12 December 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-076](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-076)

## Tamil Nadu Field Assistants of Coimbatore Municipal Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chengalpet (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-077)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-077
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Field Assistants of Coimbatore Municipal Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chengalpet (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Chengalpet (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Field Assistants of Coimbatore Municipal Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chengalpet (2023)
**Conviction:** 12 December 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Field Assistants of Coimbatore Municipal Corporation
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chengalpet convicted a Field Assistants of Coimbatore Municipal Corporation on 12 December 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-077](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-077)

## Tamil Nadu Section Officer, Institute of Distance Education, University of Madras, Chennai-5 convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-079)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-079
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Section Officer, Institute of Distance Education, University of Madras, Chennai-5 convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Section Officer, Institute of Distance Education, University of Madras, Chennai-5 convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Conviction:** 8 December 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Section Officer, Institute of Distance Education, University of Madras, Chennai-5
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted a Section Officer, Institute of Distance Education, University of Madras, Chennai-5 on 8 December 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-079](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-079)

## Coimbatore Executive Officer, Veera Keralam town panchayat, Coimbatore District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Coimbatore (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-080)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-080
**Title:** Coimbatore Executive Officer, Veera Keralam town panchayat, Coimbatore District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Coimbatore (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Coimbatore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Coimbatore Executive Officer, Veera Keralam town panchayat, Coimbatore District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Coimbatore (2023)
**Conviction:** 30 November 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Executive Officer, Veera Keralam town panchayat, Coimbatore District
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.17,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Coimbatore convicted an Executive Officer, Veera Keralam town panchayat, Coimbatore District on 30 November 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.17,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-080](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-080)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, CMWSSB, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-081)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-081
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, CMWSSB, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, CMWSSB, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Conviction:** 31 October 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Engineer, CMWSSB, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted an Assistant Engineer, CMWSSB, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai on 31 October 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-081](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-081)

## Tamil Nadu Field Surveyor, Firka Surveyor Kolarpatti, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore convicted of bribery, Special Court, Coimbatore (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-082)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-082
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Field Surveyor, Firka Surveyor Kolarpatti, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore convicted of bribery, Special Court, Coimbatore (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Coimbatore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Field Surveyor, Firka Surveyor Kolarpatti, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore convicted of bribery, Special Court, Coimbatore (2023)
**Conviction:** 31 October 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Field Surveyor, Firka Surveyor (i/c) Kolarpatti, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Coimbatore convicted a Field Surveyor, Firka Surveyor (i/c) Kolarpatti, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore on 31 October 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-082](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-082)

## Tamil Nadu Junior Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Court, Cuddalore (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-085)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-085
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Junior Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Court, Cuddalore (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Cuddalore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Junior Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Court, Cuddalore (2023)
**Conviction:** 13 October 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Assistant
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.3,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Cuddalore convicted a Junior Assistant on 13 October 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.3,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the employing office is not stated in the source entry.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-085](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-085)

## Tamil Nadu Deputy Inspector General of Registration Department convicted of bribery, Special Court, Coimbatore (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-086)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-086
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Deputy Inspector General of Registration Department convicted of bribery, Special Court, Coimbatore (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Coimbatore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Deputy Inspector General of Registration Department convicted of bribery, Special Court, Coimbatore (2023)
**Conviction:** 29 September 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Inspector General of Registration Department
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Coimbatore convicted a Deputy Inspector General of Registration Department on 29 September 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-086](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-086)

## Tamil Nadu Sub Registrar, Triplicane, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-087)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-087
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Sub Registrar, Triplicane, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Sub Registrar, Triplicane, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Conviction:** 29 September 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Sub Registrar, Triplicane, Chennai
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted a Sub Registrar, Triplicane, Chennai on 29 September 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-087](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-087)

## Tamil Nadu Block Health Supervisor, Primary Health Centre, Arisipalayam, Madukari Block, Coimbatore district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Coimbatore (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-088)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-088
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Block Health Supervisor, Primary Health Centre, Arisipalayam, Madukari Block, Coimbatore district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Coimbatore (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Coimbatore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Block Health Supervisor, Primary Health Centre, Arisipalayam, Madukari Block, Coimbatore district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Coimbatore (2023)
**Conviction:** 27 September 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Block Health Supervisor, Primary Health Centre, Arisipalayam, Madukari Block, Coimbatore district
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Coimbatore convicted a Block Health Supervisor, Primary Health Centre, Arisipalayam, Madukari Block, Coimbatore district on 27 September 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-088](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-088)

## Tamil Nadu VAO, Periyakappankulam Village, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Cuddalore (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-089)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-089
**Title:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Periyakappankulam Village, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Cuddalore (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Cuddalore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Periyakappankulam Village, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Cuddalore (2023)
**Conviction:** 19 September 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** VAO, Periyakappankulam Village, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore district
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Cuddalore convicted a VAO, Periyakappankulam Village, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore district on 19 September 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-089](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-089)

## Tamil Nadu Village Assistant, Periyakappankulam Village, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Cuddalore (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-090)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-090
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Village Assistant, Periyakappankulam Village, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Cuddalore (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Cuddalore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Village Assistant, Periyakappankulam Village, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Cuddalore (2023)
**Conviction:** 19 September 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Assistant, Periyakappankulam Village, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore district
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Cuddalore convicted a Village Assistant, Periyakappankulam Village, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore district on 19 September 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-090](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-090)

## Tamil Nadu Community Organizer, Corporation of Madurai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-093)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-093
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Community Organizer, Corporation of Madurai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Community Organizer, Corporation of Madurai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2023)
**Conviction:** 11 September 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Community Organizer, Corporation of Madurai
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Madurai convicted a Community Organizer, Corporation of Madurai on 11 September 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-093](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-093)

## Tamil Nadu Extension Officer, Social Welfare, Keerapalayam PU, Cuddalore district convicted of bribery, CJM Cum Special Court, Cudallore (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-094)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-094
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Extension Officer, Social Welfare, Keerapalayam PU, Cuddalore district convicted of bribery, CJM Cum Special Court, Cudallore (2023)
**Court:** CJM Cum Special Court, Cudallore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Extension Officer, Social Welfare, Keerapalayam PU, Cuddalore district convicted of bribery, CJM Cum Special Court, Cudallore (2023)
**Conviction:** 31 August 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Extension Officer, Social Welfare, Keerapalayam PU, Cuddalore district
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the CJM Cum Special Court, Cudallore convicted an Extension Officer, Social Welfare, Keerapalayam PU, Cuddalore district on 31 August 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-094](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-094)

## Tamil Nadu Village Administrative Officer, Kottivakkam, Pallavaram Village convicted of bribery, CJM Cum Special Court, Chengalpattu (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-095)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-095
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Village Administrative Officer, Kottivakkam, Pallavaram Village convicted of bribery, CJM Cum Special Court, Chengalpattu (2023)
**Court:** CJM Cum Special Court, Chengalpattu (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Village Administrative Officer, Kottivakkam, Pallavaram Village convicted of bribery, CJM Cum Special Court, Chengalpattu (2023)
**Conviction:** 31 August 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Administrative Officer, Kottivakkam, Pallavaram Village
**Sentence:** 1 year simple imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the CJM Cum Special Court, Chengalpattu convicted a Village Administrative Officer, Kottivakkam, Pallavaram Village on 31 August 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year simple imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-095](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-095)

## Sivagangai Revenue Inspector, Sivagangai District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Sivagangai (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-097)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-097
**Title:** Sivagangai Revenue Inspector, Sivagangai District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Sivagangai (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Sivagangai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Sivagangai Revenue Inspector, Sivagangai District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Sivagangai (2023)
**Conviction:** 23 August 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sivagangai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Sivagangai District
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Sivagangai convicted a Revenue Inspector, Sivagangai District on 23 August 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-097](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-097)

## Tamil Nadu Pharmacist, Govt.Hospital, Tirumangalam, Madurai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-098)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-098
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Pharmacist, Govt.Hospital, Tirumangalam, Madurai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Pharmacist, Govt.Hospital, Tirumangalam, Madurai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2023)
**Conviction:** 14 August 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Pharmacist, Govt.Hospital, Tirumangalam, Madurai
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Madurai convicted a Pharmacist, Govt.Hospital, Tirumangalam, Madurai on 14 August 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.2,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-098](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-098)

## Tamil Nadu Commercial Inspector, MGR Nagar Section, K.K.Nagar, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-099)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-099
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Commercial Inspector, MGR Nagar Section, K.K.Nagar, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Commercial Inspector, MGR Nagar Section, K.K.Nagar, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Conviction:** 31 July 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Commercial Inspector, MGR Nagar Section, K.K.Nagar, Chennai
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.3,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted a Commercial Inspector, MGR Nagar Section, K.K.Nagar, Chennai on 31 July 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.3,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the employing office is not stated in the source entry.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-099](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-099)

## Karur Commercial Inspector, Karur District convicted of bribery, Special Court/CJM, Karur (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-101)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-101
**Title:** Karur Commercial Inspector, Karur District convicted of bribery, Special Court/CJM, Karur (2023)
**Court:** Special Court/CJM, Karur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Karur Commercial Inspector, Karur District convicted of bribery, Special Court/CJM, Karur (2023)
**Conviction:** 24 July 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Commercial Inspector, Karur District
**Sentence:** 3 years of rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court/CJM, Karur convicted a Commercial Inspector, Karur District on 24 July 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years of rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the employing office is not stated in the source entry.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-101](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-101)

## Tamil Nadu Surveyor, Dharmapuri Municipality convicted of bribery, Special Court/CJM, Dharmapuri (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-104)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-104
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Surveyor, Dharmapuri Municipality convicted of bribery, Special Court/CJM, Dharmapuri (2023)
**Court:** Special Court/CJM, Dharmapuri (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Surveyor, Dharmapuri Municipality convicted of bribery, Special Court/CJM, Dharmapuri (2023)
**Conviction:** 20 July 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Surveyor, Dharmapuri Municipality
**Sentence:** 2 years of rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court/CJM, Dharmapuri convicted a Surveyor, Dharmapuri Municipality on 20 July 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years of rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-104](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-104)

## Tamil Nadu Asst.Director, Drugs Control Board, Thiruvallur convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special court, Thiruvallur (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-110)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-110
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Asst.Director, Drugs Control Board, Thiruvallur convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special court, Thiruvallur (2023)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special court, Thiruvallur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Asst.Director, Drugs Control Board, Thiruvallur convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special court, Thiruvallur (2023)
**Conviction:** 21 April 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Asst.Director, Drugs Control Board, Thiruvallur
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special court, Thiruvallur convicted an Asst.Director, Drugs Control Board, Thiruvallur on 21 April 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-110](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-110)

## Tamil Nadu Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special court (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-111)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-111
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special court (2023)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special court (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special court (2023)
**Conviction:** 31 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special court convicted a Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore on 31 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-111](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-111)

## Tamil Nadu AE of Division-35 of CMWSSB, MKB Nagar convicted of bribery, Special Judge, special court (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-112)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-112
**Title:** Tamil Nadu AE of Division-35 of CMWSSB, MKB Nagar convicted of bribery, Special Judge, special court (2023)
**Court:** Special Judge, special court (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu AE of Division-35 of CMWSSB, MKB Nagar convicted of bribery, Special Judge, special court (2023)
**Conviction:** 31 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** AE of Division-35 of CMWSSB, MKB Nagar
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, special court convicted an AE of Division-35 of CMWSSB, MKB Nagar on 31 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-112](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-112)

## Tamil Nadu Executive Engineer, PWD, Thiruvannamalai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-113)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-113
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Executive Engineer, PWD, Thiruvannamalai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate (2023)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Executive Engineer, PWD, Thiruvannamalai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate (2023)
**Conviction:** 23 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Executive Engineer, PWD, Thiruvannamalai, formerly Executive Engineer, PWD, Thiruvannamalai
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted an Executive Engineer, PWD, Thiruvannamalai, formerly Executive Engineer, PWD, Thiruvannamalai, on 23 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-113](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-113)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant, PWD, Thiruvannamalai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-114)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-114
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant, PWD, Thiruvannamalai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate (2023)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant, PWD, Thiruvannamalai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate (2023)
**Conviction:** 23 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant, PWD, Thiruvannamalai
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted an Assistant, PWD, Thiruvannamalai on 23 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-114](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-114)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant Inspector of Labour, 22nd Circle, Little Mount, Chennai-15 convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-115)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-115
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Inspector of Labour, 22nd Circle, Little Mount, Chennai-15 convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Inspector of Labour, 22nd Circle, Little Mount, Chennai-15 convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Conviction:** 23 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Inspector of Labour, 22nd Circle, Little Mount, Chennai-15
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted an Assistant Inspector of Labour, 22nd Circle, Little Mount, Chennai-15 on 23 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-115](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-115)

## Tamil Nadu Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Villupuram Taluk office, Villupuram district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Villupuram (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-116)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-116
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Villupuram Taluk office, Villupuram district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Villupuram (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Villupuram (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Villupuram Taluk office, Villupuram district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Villupuram (2023)
**Conviction:** 20 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Villupuram Taluk office, Villupuram district
**Sentence:** one year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Villupuram convicted a Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Villupuram Taluk office, Villupuram district on 20 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: one year rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-116](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-116)

## Tamil Nadu Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-117)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-117
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil (2023)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil (2023)
**Conviction:** 17 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil convicted a Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil on 17 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-117](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-117)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant, o/o Regional Joint Director of collegiate Education Trichy convicted of bribery, Special Court, Trichy (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-118)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-118
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant, o/o Regional Joint Director of collegiate Education Trichy convicted of bribery, Special Court, Trichy (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Trichy (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant, o/o Regional Joint Director of collegiate Education Trichy convicted of bribery, Special Court, Trichy (2023)
**Conviction:** 17 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant, o/o Regional Joint Director of collegiate Education Trichy
**Sentence:** one and half years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Trichy convicted an Assistant, o/o Regional Joint Director of collegiate Education Trichy on 17 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: one and half years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-118](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-118)

## Tamil Nadu Special Revenue Inspector, Illupur Taluk Supply Office, Pudukottai district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Pudukottai (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-119)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-119
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Special Revenue Inspector, Illupur Taluk Supply Office, Pudukottai district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Pudukottai (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Pudukottai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Special Revenue Inspector, Illupur Taluk Supply Office, Pudukottai district convicted of bribery, Special Court, Pudukottai (2023)
**Conviction:** 16 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Special Revenue Inspector, Illupur Taluk Supply Office, Pudukottai district
**Sentence:** 5 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.3,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Pudukottai convicted a Special Revenue Inspector, Illupur Taluk Supply Office, Pudukottai district on 16 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 5 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.3,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-119](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-119)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant, Thiruvallur Collectorate convicted of bribery, Special Court, Thiruvallur (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-120)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-120
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant, Thiruvallur Collectorate convicted of bribery, Special Court, Thiruvallur (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Thiruvallur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant, Thiruvallur Collectorate convicted of bribery, Special Court, Thiruvallur (2023)
**Conviction:** 16 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant, Thiruvallur Collectorate
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Thiruvallur convicted an Assistant, Thiruvallur Collectorate on 16 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-120](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-120)

## Kanyakumari Firka Surveyor, Kurunthancode Firka, Kalkulam Taluk, Takkalai, Kanyakumari District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Kanyakumari (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-121)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-121
**Title:** Kanyakumari Firka Surveyor, Kurunthancode Firka, Kalkulam Taluk, Takkalai, Kanyakumari District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Kanyakumari (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Kanyakumari (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Kanyakumari Firka Surveyor, Kurunthancode Firka, Kalkulam Taluk, Takkalai, Kanyakumari District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Kanyakumari (2023)
**Conviction:** 15 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Firka Surveyor, Kurunthancode Firka, Kalkulam Taluk, Takkalai, Kanyakumari District
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Kanyakumari convicted a Firka Surveyor, Kurunthancode Firka, Kalkulam Taluk, Takkalai, Kanyakumari District on 15 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-121](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-121)

## Tamil Nadu District Elementary Education Officer, Trichy convicted of bribery, Special Court, Trichy (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-122)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-122
**Title:** Tamil Nadu District Elementary Education Officer, Trichy convicted of bribery, Special Court, Trichy (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Trichy (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu District Elementary Education Officer, Trichy convicted of bribery, Special Court, Trichy (2023)
**Conviction:** 15 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** District Elementary Education Officer, Trichy
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Trichy convicted a District Elementary Education Officer, Trichy on 15 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-122](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-122)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant Superintendent, O/o the DEEO convicted of bribery, Special Court, Trichy (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-123)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-123
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Superintendent, O/o the DEEO convicted of bribery, Special Court, Trichy (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Trichy (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Superintendent, O/o the DEEO convicted of bribery, Special Court, Trichy (2023)
**Conviction:** 15 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Superintendent, O/o the DEEO
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Trichy convicted an Assistant Superintendent, O/o the DEEO on 15 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-123](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-123)

## Tamil Nadu Revenue Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Court, Nilgiris (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-124)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-124
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Revenue Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Court, Nilgiris (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Nilgiris (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Revenue Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Court, Nilgiris (2023)
**Conviction:** 14 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Assistant
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Nilgiris convicted a Revenue Assistant on 14 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-124](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-124)

## Tamil Nadu Village Administrative Officer convicted of bribery, Special Court, Karur (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-125)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-125
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Village Administrative Officer convicted of bribery, Special Court, Karur (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Karur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Village Administrative Officer convicted of bribery, Special Court, Karur (2023)
**Conviction:** 13 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Administrative Officer
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (sentences of co-accused omitted)

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Karur convicted a Village Administrative Officer on 13 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment, fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (sentences of co-accused omitted). This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-125](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-125)

## Tamil Nadu Technical Assistant, & Junior Engineer, Division-41, Pulianthope, Chennai-12 convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-126)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-126
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Technical Assistant, & Junior Engineer, Division-41, Pulianthope, Chennai-12 convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Technical Assistant, & Junior Engineer, Division-41, Pulianthope, Chennai-12 convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Conviction:** 9 March 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Technical Assistant, & Junior Engineer, Division-41, Pulianthope, Chennai-12
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted a Technical Assistant, & Junior Engineer, Division-41, Pulianthope, Chennai-12 on 9 March 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the employing office is not stated in the source entry.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-126](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-126)

## Karur Record Clerk Kulithalai Taluk Office, Karur District convicted of bribery, CJM/SJ Karur (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-129)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-129
**Title:** Karur Record Clerk Kulithalai Taluk Office, Karur District convicted of bribery, CJM/SJ Karur (2023)
**Court:** CJM/SJ Karur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Karur Record Clerk Kulithalai Taluk Office, Karur District convicted of bribery, CJM/SJ Karur (2023)
**Conviction:** 23 February 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Record Clerk Kulithalai Taluk Office, Karur District
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the CJM/SJ Karur convicted a Record Clerk Kulithalai Taluk Office, Karur District on 23 February 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-129](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-129)

## Thanjavur Assistant Papanasam Taluk Office, Thanjavur District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Thanjavur (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-130)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-130
**Title:** Thanjavur Assistant Papanasam Taluk Office, Thanjavur District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Thanjavur (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Thanjavur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Thanjavur Assistant Papanasam Taluk Office, Thanjavur District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Thanjavur (2023)
**Conviction:** 20 February 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Papanasam Taluk Office, Thanjavur District
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.4,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Thanjavur convicted an Assistant Papanasam Taluk Office, Thanjavur District on 20 February 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.4,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-130](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-130)

## Tamil Nadu AEE, PWD, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-132)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-132
**Title:** Tamil Nadu AEE, PWD, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu AEE, PWD, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2023)
**Conviction:** 10 February 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** AEE, PWD, Chennai
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted an AEE, PWD, Chennai on 10 February 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-132](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-132)

## Karur District Regtistrar, Karur District convicted of bribery, CJM, Coimbatore (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-133)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-133
**Title:** Karur District Regtistrar, Karur District convicted of bribery, CJM, Coimbatore (2023)
**Court:** CJM, Coimbatore (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Karur District Regtistrar, Karur District convicted of bribery, CJM, Coimbatore (2023)
**Conviction:** 6 February 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** District Regtistrar, Karur District
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.50,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the CJM, Coimbatore convicted a District Regtistrar, Karur District on 6 February 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.50,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-133](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-133)

## Tamil Nadu VAO, Pothur Village, Ambattur convicted of bribery, CJM, Thiruvallur (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-134)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-134
**Title:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Pothur Village, Ambattur convicted of bribery, CJM, Thiruvallur (2023)
**Court:** CJM, Thiruvallur (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Pothur Village, Ambattur convicted of bribery, CJM, Thiruvallur (2023)
**Conviction:** 30 January 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** VAO, Pothur Village, Ambattur
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the CJM, Thiruvallur convicted a VAO, Pothur Village, Ambattur on 30 January 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-134](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-134)

## Cuddalore VAO, Iruppu Village, Cuddalore District convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Cuddalore (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-135)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-135
**Title:** Cuddalore VAO, Iruppu Village, Cuddalore District convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Cuddalore (2023)
**Court:** Special Judge, Cuddalore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Cuddalore VAO, Iruppu Village, Cuddalore District convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Cuddalore (2023)
**Conviction:** 25 January 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** VAO, Iruppu Village, Cuddalore District
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Cuddalore convicted a VAO, Iruppu Village, Cuddalore District on 25 January 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-135](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-135)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant, Dindigul Taluk Office convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-136)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-136
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant, Dindigul Taluk Office convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2023)
**Court:** Special Judge, Thiruvallur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant, Dindigul Taluk Office convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2023)
**Conviction:** 6 January 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant, Dindigul Taluk Office
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Thiruvallur convicted an Assistant, Dindigul Taluk Office on 6 January 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-136](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-136)

## Tamil Nadu Jr.Assistant, Health Department, Thiruvallur convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2023) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-137)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-137
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Jr.Assistant, Health Department, Thiruvallur convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2023)
**Court:** Special Judge, Thiruvallur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Jr.Assistant, Health Department, Thiruvallur convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Thiruvallur (2023)
**Conviction:** 4 January 2023
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Jr.Assistant, Health Department, Thiruvallur
**Sentence:** 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Thiruvallur convicted a Jr.Assistant, Health Department, Thiruvallur on 4 January 2023. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-137](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-137)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant, Chinniampalayam, Coimbatore convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Nilgiris (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-139)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-139
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant, Chinniampalayam, Coimbatore convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Nilgiris (2022)
**Court:** Special Judge, Nilgiris (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant, Chinniampalayam, Coimbatore convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Nilgiris (2022)
**Conviction:** 16 December 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant, Chinniampalayam, Coimbatore
**Sentence:** 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Nilgiris convicted an Assistant, Chinniampalayam, Coimbatore on 16 December 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the employing office is not stated in the source entry.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-139](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-139)

## Tamil Nadu Union Engineer, Cunoor convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Nilgiris (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-141)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-141
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Union Engineer, Cunoor convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Nilgiris (2022)
**Court:** Special Judge, Nilgiris (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Union Engineer, Cunoor convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Nilgiris (2022)
**Conviction:** 13 December 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Union Engineer, Cunoor
**Sentence:** 4 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Nilgiris convicted an Union Engineer, Cunoor on 13 December 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-141](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-141)

## Tamil Nadu VAO, Nakkalapatti, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai district convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Madurai (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-144)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-144
**Title:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Nakkalapatti, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai district convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Madurai (2022)
**Court:** Special Judge, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Nakkalapatti, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai district convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Madurai (2022)
**Conviction:** 29 November 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** VAO, Nakkalapatti, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai district
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment and fine amount Rs.1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Madurai convicted a VAO, Nakkalapatti, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai district on 29 November 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years imprisonment and fine amount Rs.1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-144](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-144)

## Tamil Nadu Deputy Inspector of Survey, Taluk office, Trichy district convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Trichy (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-145)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-145
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Deputy Inspector of Survey, Taluk office, Trichy district convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Trichy (2022)
**Court:** Special Judge, Trichy (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Deputy Inspector of Survey, Taluk office, Trichy district convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Trichy (2022)
**Conviction:** 25 November 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Deputy Inspector of Survey, Taluk office, Trichy district
**Sentence:** 3 years imprisonment and fine amount Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Trichy convicted a Deputy Inspector of Survey, Taluk office, Trichy district on 25 November 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years imprisonment and fine amount Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-145](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-145)

## Tamil Nadu Commercial Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-146)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-146
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Commercial Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Commercial Assistant convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022)
**Conviction:** 21 November 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Commercial Assistant
**Sentence:** 3 years imprisonment and fine amount Rs.1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted a Commercial Assistant on 21 November 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years imprisonment and fine amount Rs.1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the employing office is not stated in the source entry.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-146](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-146)

## Tamil Nadu Jr.Assistant, Kizhkunda Town Panchayat convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Nilgiris (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-147)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-147
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Jr.Assistant, Kizhkunda Town Panchayat convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Nilgiris (2022)
**Court:** Special Judge, Nilgiris (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Jr.Assistant, Kizhkunda Town Panchayat convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Nilgiris (2022)
**Conviction:** 14 November 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Jr.Assistant, Kizhkunda Town Panchayat
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment and fine amount Rs.2,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Nilgiris convicted a Jr.Assistant, Kizhkunda Town Panchayat on 14 November 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years imprisonment and fine amount Rs.2,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-147](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-147)

## Tamil Nadu Sub-Registrar convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-148)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-148
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Sub-Registrar convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2022)
**Court:** Special Judge, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Sub-Registrar convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2022)
**Conviction:** 14 November 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Sub-Registrar
**Sentence:** 2 years imprisonment and fine amount Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Chennai convicted a Sub-Registrar on 14 November 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years imprisonment and fine amount Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-148](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-148)

## Tamil Nadu Survey Dy.Inspector, North Taluk Ofice, Coimbator convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Coimbatore (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-149)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-149
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Survey Dy.Inspector, North Taluk Ofice, Coimbator convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Coimbatore (2022)
**Court:** Special Judge, Coimbatore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Survey Dy.Inspector, North Taluk Ofice, Coimbator convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Coimbatore (2022)
**Conviction:** 4 November 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Survey Dy.Inspector, North Taluk Ofice, Coimbator
**Sentence:** 3 years imprisonment and fine amount Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Coimbatore convicted a Survey Dy.Inspector, North Taluk Ofice, Coimbator on 4 November 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years imprisonment and fine amount Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-149](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-149)

## Tamil Nadu Bill Collector, Valasarawakkam, formerly Ramapuram convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-151)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-151
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Bill Collector, Valasarawakkam, formerly Ramapuram convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Bill Collector, Valasarawakkam, formerly Ramapuram convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur (2022)
**Conviction:** 26 October 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Bill Collector, Valasarawakkam, formerly Ramapuram
**Sentence:** 3 years RI and fine amount Rs.40,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur convicted a Bill Collector, Valasarawakkam, formerly Ramapuram on 26 October 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years RI and fine amount Rs.40,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-151](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-151)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant worked at Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 convicted of bribery, Speecial Court, Chennai (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-152)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-152
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant worked at Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 convicted of bribery, Speecial Court, Chennai (2022)
**Court:** Speecial Court, Chennai (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant worked at Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 convicted of bribery, Speecial Court, Chennai (2022)
**Conviction:** 30 September 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant (Cashier) worked at Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai-10
**Sentence:** 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Speecial Court, Chennai convicted an Assistant (Cashier) worked at Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 on 30 September 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-152](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-152)

## Tamil Nadu VAO, Poogunam, Thiruvannamalai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-153)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-153
**Title:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Poogunam, Thiruvannamalai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Poogunam, Thiruvannamalai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai (2022)
**Conviction:** 27 September 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** VAO, Poogunam, Thiruvannamalai
**Sentence:** 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.4,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai convicted a VAO, Poogunam, Thiruvannamalai on 27 September 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.4,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-153](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-153)

## Tamil Nadu Village Administrative Officer, Periyavadavadi Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore district convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Cuddalore (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-154)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-154
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Village Administrative Officer, Periyavadavadi Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore district convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Cuddalore (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Cuddalore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Village Administrative Officer, Periyavadavadi Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore district convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Cuddalore (2022)
**Conviction:** 26 August 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Administrative Officer, Periyavadavadi Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore district
**Sentence:** 2 years RI and fine amount Rs.1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Cuddalore convicted a Village Administrative Officer, Periyavadavadi Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore district on 26 August 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years RI and fine amount Rs.1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-154](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-154)

## Tamil Nadu Revenue Inspector, Killukottai Firka, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-155)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-155
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Revenue Inspector, Killukottai Firka, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Revenue Inspector, Killukottai Firka, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai (2022)
**Conviction:** 24 August 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Killukottai Firka, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai
**Sentence:** 4 years RI and fine amount Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai convicted a Revenue Inspector, Killukottai Firka, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai on 24 August 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years RI and fine amount Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-155](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-155)

## Villupuram VAO Kumalam Village, Vikiravandi Taluk, Villupuram District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Villupuram (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-158)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-158
**Title:** Villupuram VAO Kumalam Village, Vikiravandi Taluk, Villupuram District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Villupuram (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Villupuram (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Villupuram VAO Kumalam Village, Vikiravandi Taluk, Villupuram District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Villupuram (2022)
**Conviction:** 20 July 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Villupuram, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** VAO Kumalam Village, Vikiravandi Taluk, Villupuram District
**Sentence:** 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Villupuram convicted a VAO Kumalam Village, Vikiravandi Taluk, Villupuram District on 20 July 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-158](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-158)

## Tamil Nadu Electrical Pumps Man, CMWSSB, Area - 8 convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-159)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-159
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Electrical Pumps Man, CMWSSB, Area - 8 convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2022)
**Court:** Special Judge, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Electrical Pumps Man, CMWSSB, Area - 8 convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Chennai (2022)
**Conviction:** 15 July 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Electrical Pumps Man, CMWSSB, Area - 8
**Sentence:** 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Chennai convicted an Electrical Pumps Man, CMWSSB, Area - 8 on 15 July 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-159](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-159)

## Thiruvarur Kunniyur Range Revenue Inspector, Thiruvarur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thiruvarur (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-160)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-160
**Title:** Thiruvarur Kunniyur Range Revenue Inspector, Thiruvarur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thiruvarur (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thiruvarur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Thiruvarur Kunniyur Range Revenue Inspector, Thiruvarur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thiruvarur (2022)
**Conviction:** 14 July 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Kunniyur Range Revenue Inspector, Thiruvarur District
**Sentence:** 3 years RI and fine amount Rs.2,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thiruvarur convicted a Kunniyur Range Revenue Inspector, Thiruvarur District on 14 July 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years RI and fine amount Rs.2,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-160](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-160)

## Thiruvarur VAO, Alivalam, Thiruvarur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thiruvarur (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-161)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-161
**Title:** Thiruvarur VAO, Alivalam, Thiruvarur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thiruvarur (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thiruvarur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Thiruvarur VAO, Alivalam, Thiruvarur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thiruvarur (2022)
**Conviction:** 14 July 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** VAO, Alivalam, Thiruvarur District
**Sentence:** 3 years RI and fine amount Rs.2,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thiruvarur convicted a VAO, Alivalam, Thiruvarur District on 14 July 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years RI and fine amount Rs.2,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-161](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-161)

## Tamil Nadu Town Planning Inspector, Erode Municipal Corporation, Erode convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-163)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-163
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Town Planning Inspector, Erode Municipal Corporation, Erode convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Town Planning Inspector, Erode Municipal Corporation, Erode convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (2022)
**Conviction:** 14 June 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Town Planning Inspector, Erode Municipal Corporation, Erode
**Sentence:** 3 year RI and fine amount Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode convicted a Town Planning Inspector, Erode Municipal Corporation, Erode on 14 June 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 year RI and fine amount Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-163](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-163)

## Tamil Nadu Chainman/OA., Town Planning Section, Erode Municipal Corporation, Erode convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-164)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-164
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Chainman/OA., Town Planning Section, Erode Municipal Corporation, Erode convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Chainman/OA., Town Planning Section, Erode Municipal Corporation, Erode convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (2022)
**Conviction:** 14 June 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Chainman/OA., Town Planning Section, Erode Municipal Corporation, Erode
**Sentence:** 3 year RI and fine amount Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode convicted a Chainman/OA., Town Planning Section, Erode Municipal Corporation, Erode on 14 June 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 year RI and fine amount Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-164](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-164)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, PWD, Irrigation, Gobichettipalayam convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-165)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-165
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, PWD, Irrigation, Gobichettipalayam convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, PWD, Irrigation, Gobichettipalayam convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (2022)
**Conviction:** 8 June 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Engineer, PWD, Irrigation, Gobichettipalayam
**Sentence:** 3 year RI and fine amount Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode convicted an Assistant Engineer, PWD, Irrigation, Gobichettipalayam on 8 June 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 year RI and fine amount Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-165](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-165)

## Tamil Nadu Mazdoor Gr.I. convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-166)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-166
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Mazdoor Gr.I. convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Mazdoor Gr.I. convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode (2022)
**Conviction:** 8 June 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Mazdoor Gr.I.
**Sentence:** 3 year RI and fine amount Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Erode convicted a Mazdoor Gr.I. on 8 June 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 year RI and fine amount Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the employing office is not stated in the source entry.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-166](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-166)

## Ramanathapuram Draftsman, Land Records, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-167)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-167
**Title:** Ramanathapuram Draftsman, Land Records, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Ramanathapuram Draftsman, Land Records, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram (2022)
**Conviction:** 26 May 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Draftsman, Land Records, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram District
**Sentence:** 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.2,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram convicted a Draftsman, Land Records, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram District on 26 May 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.2,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-167](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-167)

## Kanyakumari Firka Surveyor, Colachal Firka, Kanyakumari District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Nagercoil (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-169)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-169
**Title:** Kanyakumari Firka Surveyor, Colachal Firka, Kanyakumari District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Nagercoil (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Nagercoil (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Kanyakumari Firka Surveyor, Colachal Firka, Kanyakumari District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Nagercoil (2022)
**Conviction:** 17 May 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Firka Surveyor, Colachal Firka, Kanyakumari District
**Sentence:** 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Nagercoil convicted a Firka Surveyor, Colachal Firka, Kanyakumari District on 17 May 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-169](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-169)

## Karur Village Administrative Officer, Thenilai South Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Karur (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-170)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-170
**Title:** Karur Village Administrative Officer, Thenilai South Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Karur (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Karur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Karur Village Administrative Officer, Thenilai South Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Karur (2022)
**Conviction:** 29 April 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Administrative Officer, Thenilai South Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District
**Sentence:** 3 years RI and fine amount Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Karur convicted a Village Administrative Officer, Thenilai South Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District on 29 April 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years RI and fine amount Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-170](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-170)

## Tamil Nadu Tax Assessor, Zone - 13, Adyar Corporation Zonal Office, Chennai Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-171)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-171
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Tax Assessor, Zone - 13, Adyar Corporation Zonal Office, Chennai Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Tax Assessor, Zone - 13, Adyar Corporation Zonal Office, Chennai Corporation convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022)
**Conviction:** 27 April 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Tax Assessor, Zone - 13, Adyar Corporation Zonal Office, Chennai Corporation
**Sentence:** 2 year RI and fine amount Rs.2000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted a Tax Assessor, Zone - 13, Adyar Corporation Zonal Office, Chennai Corporation on 27 April 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 year RI and fine amount Rs.2000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-171](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-171)

## Tamil Nadu Revenue Inspector, Thumbalam Firka, Musiri Taluk, Tirchy convicted of bribery, Special Court, Tirchy (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-172)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-172
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Revenue Inspector, Thumbalam Firka, Musiri Taluk, Tirchy convicted of bribery, Special Court, Tirchy (2022)
**Court:** Special Court, Tirchy (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Revenue Inspector, Thumbalam Firka, Musiri Taluk, Tirchy convicted of bribery, Special Court, Tirchy (2022)
**Conviction:** 25 April 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Thumbalam Firka, Musiri Taluk, Tirchy
**Sentence:** 3 year RI and fine amount Rs.5000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Tirchy convicted a Revenue Inspector, Thumbalam Firka, Musiri Taluk, Tirchy on 25 April 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 year RI and fine amount Rs.5000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-172](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-172)

## Tamil Nadu Office Assistant, Office of the Regional Transport Office, South, Coimbatore convicted of misconduct, Special Court, Coimbatore (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-173)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-173
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Office Assistant, Office of the Regional Transport Office, South, Coimbatore convicted of misconduct, Special Court, Coimbatore (2022)
**Court:** Special Court, Coimbatore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Office Assistant, Office of the Regional Transport Office, South, Coimbatore convicted of misconduct, Special Court, Coimbatore (2022)
**Conviction:** 25 April 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Office Assistant, Office of the Regional Transport Office, South, Coimbatore
**Sentence:** 3 year RI and fine amount Rs.5000/- for accumulated the illegal wealth

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Coimbatore convicted an Office Assistant, Office of the Regional Transport Office, South, Coimbatore on 25 April 2022. The sentence recorded is: 3 year RI and fine amount Rs.5000/- for accumulated the illegal wealth. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-173](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-173)

## Tamil Nadu Senior Estate Officer, CMDA, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-174)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-174
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Senior Estate Officer, CMDA, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022)
**Court:** Special Court, Chennai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Senior Estate Officer, CMDA, Chennai convicted of bribery, Special Court, Chennai (2022)
**Conviction:** 21 April 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Estate Officer, CMDA, Chennai
**Sentence:** 2 year RI and fine amount Rs.1000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Chennai convicted a Senior Estate Officer, CMDA, Chennai on 21 April 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 year RI and fine amount Rs.1000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-174](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-174)

## Madurai Village Administrative Officer, K.Vellakulam II Bit, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-175)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-175
**Title:** Madurai Village Administrative Officer, K.Vellakulam II Bit, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2022)
**Court:** Special Court, Madurai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Madurai Village Administrative Officer, K.Vellakulam II Bit, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Court, Madurai (2022)
**Conviction:** 21 April 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Administrative Officer, K.Vellakulam II Bit, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District
**Sentence:** 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.1000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Madurai convicted a Village Administrative Officer, K.Vellakulam II Bit, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District on 21 April 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year RI and fine amount Rs.1000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-175](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-175)

## Tamil Nadu Sub-Inspector of Survey, Ambattur Taluk convicted of bribery, Special Court, Thiruvallur (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-176)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-176
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Sub-Inspector of Survey, Ambattur Taluk convicted of bribery, Special Court, Thiruvallur (2022)
**Court:** Special Court, Thiruvallur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Sub-Inspector of Survey, Ambattur Taluk convicted of bribery, Special Court, Thiruvallur (2022)
**Conviction:** 19 April 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector of Survey, Ambattur Taluk
**Sentence:** 3 years RI and fine amount Rs.20000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court, Thiruvallur convicted a Sub-Inspector of Survey, Ambattur Taluk on 19 April 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years RI and fine amount Rs.20000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-176](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-176)

## Erode Executive officer P.Mettupalayam Town Panchayat, Erode District convicted of bribery, CJM and Special Judge, Erode (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-177)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-177
**Title:** Erode Executive officer P.Mettupalayam Town Panchayat, Erode District convicted of bribery, CJM and Special Judge, Erode (2022)
**Court:** CJM and Special Judge, Erode (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Erode Executive officer P.Mettupalayam Town Panchayat, Erode District convicted of bribery, CJM and Special Judge, Erode (2022)
**Conviction:** 5 April 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Erode, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Executive officer P.Mettupalayam Town Panchayat, Erode District
**Sentence:** 2 years RI and fine amount Rs.5000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the CJM and Special Judge, Erode convicted an Executive officer P.Mettupalayam Town Panchayat, Erode District on 5 April 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years RI and fine amount Rs.5000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-177](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-177)

## Tamil Nadu VAO, Maligaithidal Village, Valangaiman Taluk, Thiruvarur district convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Special Court, Thiruvarur (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-178)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-178
**Title:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Maligaithidal Village, Valangaiman Taluk, Thiruvarur district convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Special Court, Thiruvarur (2022)
**Court:** Special Judge, Special Court, Thiruvarur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Maligaithidal Village, Valangaiman Taluk, Thiruvarur district convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Special Court, Thiruvarur (2022)
**Conviction:** 29 March 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** VAO, Maligaithidal Village, Valangaiman Taluk, Thiruvarur district
**Sentence:** 1 year Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Special Court, Thiruvarur convicted a VAO, Maligaithidal Village, Valangaiman Taluk, Thiruvarur district on 29 March 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-178](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-178)

## Tamil Nadu Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Acharapakkam, Madurandagam Taluk convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Special Court, Chengalpet (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-179)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-179
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Acharapakkam, Madurandagam Taluk convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Special Court, Chengalpet (2022)
**Court:** Special Judge, Special Court, Chengalpet (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Acharapakkam, Madurandagam Taluk convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Special Court, Chengalpet (2022)
**Conviction:** 22 March 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Acharapakkam, Madurandagam Taluk
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Special Court, Chengalpet convicted an Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Acharapakkam, Madurandagam Taluk on 22 March 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-179](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-179)

## Tamil Nadu VAO, Karukanahalli, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri district convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Krishnagiri (2022) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-180)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-180
**Title:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Karukanahalli, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri district convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Krishnagiri (2022)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Krishnagiri (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Karukanahalli, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri district convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Krishnagiri (2022)
**Conviction:** 17 March 2022
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** VAO, Karukanahalli, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri district
**Sentence:** 1 year rigorous imprisonment; fine: Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge, Krishnagiri convicted a VAO, Karukanahalli, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri district on 17 March 2022. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year rigorous imprisonment; fine: Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-180](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-180)

## Tamil Nadu Extension Officer, Social Welfare department, Panchayat Union office, Aruppukottai convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Srivilliputhur (2021) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-185)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-185
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Extension Officer, Social Welfare department, Panchayat Union office, Aruppukottai convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Srivilliputhur (2021)
**Court:** Special Judge, Srivilliputhur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Extension Officer, Social Welfare department, Panchayat Union office, Aruppukottai convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Srivilliputhur (2021)
**Conviction:** 30 December 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Extension Officer, Social Welfare department, Panchayat Union office, Aruppukottai
**Sentence:** 1 year Imprisonment; fine: Rs.5,000/-; Rs.5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Srivilliputhur convicted an Extension Officer, Social Welfare department, Panchayat Union office, Aruppukottai on 30 December 2021. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 1 year Imprisonment; fine: Rs.5,000/-; Rs.5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-185](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-185)

## Thiruvallur Firka Surveyor, Thirupalaivanam, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Thruvallur (2021) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-186)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-186
**Title:** Thiruvallur Firka Surveyor, Thirupalaivanam, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Thruvallur (2021)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Thruvallur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Thiruvallur Firka Surveyor, Thirupalaivanam, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Thruvallur (2021)
**Conviction:** 29 December 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Firka Surveyor, Thirupalaivanam, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment and fined Rs.40,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Thruvallur convicted a Firka Surveyor, Thirupalaivanam, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District on 29 December 2021. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years imprisonment and fined Rs.40,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-186](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-186)

## Tamil Nadu VAO, Puliyur Village, Karur concerned in Karur Detachment, V&AC case in RC.157/09/REV/TR, Cr.No.7/2009 convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Karur (2021) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-187)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-187
**Title:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Puliyur Village, Karur concerned in Karur Detachment, V&AC case in RC.157/09/REV/TR, Cr.No.7/2009 convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Karur (2021)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Karur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Puliyur Village, Karur concerned in Karur Detachment, V&AC case in RC.157/09/REV/TR, Cr.No.7/2009 convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Karur (2021)
**Conviction:** 16 December 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** VAO, Puliyur Village, Karur concerned in Karur Detachment, V&AC case in RC.157/09/REV/TR, Cr.No.7/2009 (Spl. CC No.2/2014)
**Sentence:** 2 years simple imprisonment and fined Rs.20,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Karur convicted a VAO, Puliyur Village, Karur concerned in Karur Detachment, V&AC case in RC.157/09/REV/TR, Cr.No.7/2009 (Spl. CC No.2/2014) on 16 December 2021. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 2 years simple imprisonment and fined Rs.20,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-187](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-187)

## Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, WRO, PWD, Sulthanpet concerned in Coimbatore Detachment, V&AC case in Cr.No.13/2011/AC/CB convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Coimbatore (2021) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-188)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-188
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, WRO, PWD, Sulthanpet concerned in Coimbatore Detachment, V&AC case in Cr.No.13/2011/AC/CB convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Coimbatore (2021)
**Court:** Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Coimbatore (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Assistant Engineer, WRO, PWD, Sulthanpet concerned in Coimbatore Detachment, V&AC case in Cr.No.13/2011/AC/CB convicted of bribery, Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Coimbatore (2021)
**Conviction:** 16 December 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Assistant Engineer, WRO, PWD, Sulthanpet concerned in Coimbatore Detachment, V&AC case in Cr.No.13/2011/AC/CB (Spl. CC No.24/2012)
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment and fined Rs.10,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Coimbatore convicted an Assistant Engineer, WRO, PWD, Sulthanpet concerned in Coimbatore Detachment, V&AC case in Cr.No.13/2011/AC/CB (Spl. CC No.24/2012) on 16 December 2021. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years imprisonment and fined Rs.10,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-188](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-188)

## Tamil Nadu Revenue Inspector, Udhagai Town, concerned in Nilgris Detachment, V&AC case in Cr.No.2/07/AC/NI convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Ooty (2021) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-189)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-189
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Revenue Inspector, Udhagai Town, concerned in Nilgris Detachment, V&AC case in Cr.No.2/07/AC/NI convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Ooty (2021)
**Court:** Special Judge, Ooty (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Revenue Inspector, Udhagai Town, concerned in Nilgris Detachment, V&AC case in Cr.No.2/07/AC/NI convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Ooty (2021)
**Conviction:** 26 November 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Revenue Inspector, Udhagai Town, concerned in Nilgris Detachment, V&AC case in Cr.No.2/07/AC/NI
**Sentence:** 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.3,000/-; Rs.3,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Ooty convicted a Revenue Inspector, Udhagai Town, concerned in Nilgris Detachment, V&AC case in Cr.No.2/07/AC/NI on 26 November 2021. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.3,000/-; Rs.3,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-189](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-189)

## Kancheepuram Village Administrative Officer, Palamthandalam Village, Kancheepuram District convicted of bribery, CJM, Chengalpet (2021) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-190)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-190
**Title:** Kancheepuram Village Administrative Officer, Palamthandalam Village, Kancheepuram District convicted of bribery, CJM, Chengalpet (2021)
**Court:** CJM, Chengalpet (Magistrate's Court)
**Case reference:** Kancheepuram Village Administrative Officer, Palamthandalam Village, Kancheepuram District convicted of bribery, CJM, Chengalpet (2021)
**Conviction:** 18 October 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Administrative Officer, Palamthandalam Village, Kancheepuram District
**Sentence:** 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.6,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the CJM, Chengalpet convicted a Village Administrative Officer, Palamthandalam Village, Kancheepuram District on 18 October 2021. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs.6,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-190](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-190)

## Sivagangai Sub Registrar, Singampunari, Sivagangai District convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Sivagangai (2021) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-191)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-191
**Title:** Sivagangai Sub Registrar, Singampunari, Sivagangai District convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Sivagangai (2021)
**Court:** Special Judge, Sivagangai (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Sivagangai Sub Registrar, Singampunari, Sivagangai District convicted of bribery, Special Judge, Sivagangai (2021)
**Conviction:** 19 January 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Sivagangai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Sub Registrar, Singampunari, Sivagangai District
**Sentence:** Conviction of four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge, Sivagangai convicted a Sub Registrar, Singampunari, Sivagangai District on 19 January 2021. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: Conviction of four years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-191](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-191)

## Madurai Firka Surveyor, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Judge for PC Act cases, Madurai Court (2021) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-193)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-193
**Title:** Madurai Firka Surveyor, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Judge for PC Act cases, Madurai Court (2021)
**Court:** Special Judge for PC Act cases, Madurai Court (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Madurai Firka Surveyor, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District convicted of bribery, Special Judge for PC Act cases, Madurai Court (2021)
**Conviction:** 11 January 2021
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Firka Surveyor, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District
**Sentence:** Conviction of 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 2,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Judge for PC Act cases, Madurai Court convicted a Firka Surveyor, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District on 11 January 2021. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: Conviction of 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 2,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-193](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-193)

## Tamil Nadu VAO, Koduingal Village convicted of bribery, CJM/Special Judge, Villupuram (2020) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-194)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-194
**Title:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Koduingal Village convicted of bribery, CJM/Special Judge, Villupuram (2020)
**Court:** CJM/Special Judge, Villupuram (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu VAO, Koduingal Village convicted of bribery, CJM/Special Judge, Villupuram (2020)
**Conviction:** 10 December 2020
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** VAO, Koduingal Village
**Sentence:** Conviction of 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 5,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the CJM/Special Judge, Villupuram convicted a VAO, Koduingal Village on 10 December 2020. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: Conviction of 4 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 5,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-194](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-194)

## Tamil Nadu Junior Engineer convicted of bribery, Special Court for Vigilance & Anti-Corruption cases, Thiruvarur (2020) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-195)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-195
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Junior Engineer convicted of bribery, Special Court for Vigilance & Anti-Corruption cases, Thiruvarur (2020)
**Court:** Special Court for Vigilance & Anti-Corruption cases, Thiruvarur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Junior Engineer convicted of bribery, Special Court for Vigilance & Anti-Corruption cases, Thiruvarur (2020)
**Conviction:** 10 November 2020
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Junior Engineer
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court for Vigilance & Anti-Corruption cases, Thiruvarur convicted a Junior Engineer on 10 November 2020. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the employing office is not stated in the source entry.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-195](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-195)

## Tamil Nadu Commercial Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Court for Vigilance & Anti-Corruption cases, Thiruvarur (2020) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-196)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-196
**Title:** Tamil Nadu Commercial Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Court for Vigilance & Anti-Corruption cases, Thiruvarur (2020)
**Court:** Special Court for Vigilance & Anti-Corruption cases, Thiruvarur (Special Court (ACB))
**Case reference:** Tamil Nadu Commercial Inspector convicted of bribery, Special Court for Vigilance & Anti-Corruption cases, Thiruvarur (2020)
**Conviction:** 10 November 2020
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Commercial Inspector
**Sentence:** 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 1,000/-

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the Special Court for Vigilance & Anti-Corruption cases, Thiruvarur convicted a Commercial Inspector on 10 November 2020. The conviction was for bribery. The sentence recorded is: 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 1,000/-. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted. Verification level V1: the employing office is not stated in the source entry.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V1 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-196](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-196)

## Karur District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Karur District convicted of fraud or misappropriation, PDJ Court, Karur (2026) (bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-198)

**Record:** bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-198
**Title:** Karur District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Karur District convicted of fraud or misappropriation, PDJ Court, Karur (2026)
**Court:** PDJ Court, Karur (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Karur District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Karur District convicted of fraud or misappropriation, PDJ Court, Karur (2026)
**Conviction:** 18 June 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Karur, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Karur District, then District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Karur District
**Sentence:** 4 years of simple imprisonment; fine: Rs.3,30,000

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press note records that the PDJ Court, Karur convicted a District Adi Dravidar and Tribal, Karur District, then District Adi Dravidar and Tribal, Karur District, on 18 June 2026. The conviction was for misappropriation of public money. The sentence recorded is: 4 years of simple imprisonment; fine: Rs.3,30,000. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-198](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-r7-tn-dvac-01-198)

## Srikakulam Sub Post Master convicted of fraud or misappropriation, CBI Court, Visakhapatnam (2026) (bx-w0925-cbi-01-001)

**Record:** bx-w0925-cbi-01-001
**Title:** Srikakulam Sub Post Master convicted of fraud or misappropriation, CBI Court, Visakhapatnam (2026)
**Court:** CBI Court, Visakhapatnam (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Srikakulam Sub Post Master convicted of fraud or misappropriation, CBI Court, Visakhapatnam (2026)
**Conviction:** 23 September 2026
**Incident date:** 2019-02-21
**Place:** Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh
**Category:** Fraud & misappropriation
**Sub-category:** misappropriation breach of trust
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Sub Post Master (Lower Selection Grade), Kotturu Sub Post Office, Amadalavalasa HPO, Srikakulam Division, Department of Posts
**Sentence:** 5 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 7,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the CBI Court, Visakhapatnam convicted a former Sub Post Master of Kotturu Sub Post Office in Srikakulam Division on 23 September 2026 and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 7,000. The CBI alleged that between 21.02.2019 and 24.08.2019 he dishonestly withdrew and misappropriated Rs. 47,95,000 of government funds, amounting to criminal breach of trust, cheating, falsification of accounts and criminal misappropriation by a public servant. The CBI registered the case on 06.03.2020 and filed its chargesheet on 31.12.2020. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/ODAyNQ==); [timesofindia.indiatimes.com](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vijayawada/sub-postmaster-gets-5-year-jail-in-fraud-case-in-vizag/articleshow/134443187.cms)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-w0925-cbi-01-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-w0925-cbi-01-001)

## Agra Senior Section Engineer convicted of bribery, CBI Court, Ghaziabad (2026) (bx-w0925-cbi-01-004)

**Record:** bx-w0925-cbi-01-004
**Title:** Agra Senior Section Engineer convicted of bribery, CBI Court, Ghaziabad (2026)
**Court:** CBI Court, Ghaziabad (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Agra Senior Section Engineer convicted of bribery, CBI Court, Ghaziabad (2026)
**Conviction:** 10 September 2026
**Incident date:** 2016-01-01
**Place:** Agra, Uttar Pradesh
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Senior Section Engineer (Electrical), Traction Distribution, Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer's office, Agra Cantt, Indian Railways
**Sentence:** 4 years imprisonment; fine: Rs. 10,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the CBI Court, Ghaziabad convicted a former Senior Section Engineer (Electrical), Traction Distribution, of the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer's office at Agra Cantt on 10 September 2026 and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. The CBI alleged that he demanded Rs. 70,000 to approve five trailers of a Mumbai firm crossing the railway track at a rail gate in Agra, and that it caught him accepting Rs. 35,000 as the first instalment in a trap on 01.01.2016. The chargesheet was filed on 23.02.2016 and charges were framed on 21.03.2016. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/ODAwNA==)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-w0925-cbi-01-004](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-w0925-cbi-01-004)

## Jalgaon Income Tax Officer convicted of bribery, CBI Court, Aurangabad (2026) (bx-w1005-cbi-01-001)

**Record:** bx-w1005-cbi-01-001
**Title:** Jalgaon Income Tax Officer convicted of bribery, CBI Court, Aurangabad (2026)
**Court:** CBI Court, Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar) (CBI Court)
**Case reference:** Jalgaon Income Tax Officer convicted of bribery, CBI Court, Aurangabad (2026)
**Conviction:** 29 September 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Jalgaon, Maharashtra
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Income Tax Office, Jalgaon
**Sentence:** 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 1,50,000

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) press release records that the CBI Court, Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar) convicted the then Income Tax Officer of Ward 2(2), Jalgaon on 29 September 2026 and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1.5 lakh. The CBI alleged that, with a taxpayer's and his wife's returns selected for detailed scrutiny, he demanded an undue advantage for not carrying out a deep scrutiny and for passing favourable assessment orders, and he was caught accepting a bribe of Rs. 40,000 in a trap. The case was registered on 23.09.2016, the chargesheet filed on 28.12.2016 and charges framed on 20.12.2021. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (2):** [cbi.gov.in](https://cbi.gov.in/press-detail/ODA0Mg==); [socialnews.xyz](https://www.socialnews.xyz/2026/09/30/former-income-tax-officer-gets-five-year-jail-in-rs-40000-bribery-case/)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-w1005-cbi-01-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-w1005-cbi-01-001)

## Case number not stated in the source (V&AC Press Release-95) (bx-w1005-tn-dvac-01-001)

**Record:** bx-w1005-tn-dvac-01-001
**Title:** Case number not stated in the source (V&AC Press Release-95)
**Court:** Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur (Sessions Court)
**Case reference:** Case number not stated in the source (V&AC Press Release-95)
**Conviction:** 22 September 2026
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Trial-court conviction (trial_court_conviction)
**Sections:** Not stated
**Official (gated display forms):** Village Administrative Officer, Pisindi Village, Virudhunagar District
**Sentence:** 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment; fine: Rs. 10,000

A Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) press release (No. 95) records that the Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur convicted the Village Administrative Officer of Pisindi Village, Virudhunagar District on 22 September 2026 and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. In 2012 he demanded Rs. 1,500 as a bribe to process an application for transfer of a patta into the complainant's name, and was caught accepting it in a trap laid by the Virudhunagar detachment. This is the agency's account of the court's decision; the official's name is withheld, and any later appeal is not reflected unless noted.

**Sources (1):** [dvac.tn.gov.in](https://dvac.tn.gov.in/Press_Release.html)
**Verification:** V2 · Trial court
**Appeal status:** No appeal known

Status: Trial-court conviction.

[Open bx-w1005-tn-dvac-01-001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/trial-court/bx-w1005-tn-dvac-01-001)